S^SvSHk^iBfi  491 

<  t 

t 


BT  1105  .C5613  1874  c.l 
Christlieb,  Theodor,  1833- 
1889. 

Modern  doubt  and  Christian 

_ V^i-^  1  -i  Q  -P - - - - - - — 

C.  I 

» 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/moderndoubtchrisOOchri 


Ip 

MODER^[  DOUBT 

AND 

HRISTIAI^  BELIE 

S[  SciRs  of  ^poIoQftic  lEfcturcs  abtirrsscti  to 
3£arncst  Seekers  after  Erutij* 

THEODORE  CHRISTLTEB,  D.D., 

UNIVERSITY  PREACHER  AND  PROFESSOR  OF  THEOLOGY  AT  BONN, 

TRANSLATED,  WITH  THE  AUTHOR'S  SANCTION,  CHIEFLY  BY 

THE  EEV.  H.  U.  WEITBRECHT,  Pii.D. 

AND  EDITED  BY 

THE  REV.  T.  L.  KINGSBURY,  M.A., 

VICAR  OF  EASTON  ROYAL,  AND  RURAL  DEAN. 


NEW  YORK: 

Scribner,  Ar^nstrong  Sf  Co., 

1874. 


EDITOR^S  NOTE. 


The  following  translation  is  in  part  the  work  of  Mr.  G. 
H.  Venables  (translator  of  Schmid’s  Biblical  Theology  of  the 
N'eiu  Testament),  and  in  greater  measure  that  of  the  Rev. 
H.  U.  Weitbrecht — the  (fmi^^  last  Lectures,  and  the  last 
section  (B)  oi  Lecture  IV.  (from  page  266),  having  been 
translated  by  him.  Mr.  Weitbrecht,  who  has  just  received 
Deacon’s  orders  in  the  diocese  of  Chester,  studied  for  some 
years  in  Germany,  and  being  the  author’s  brother-in-law 
and  former  pupil,  has  throughout  been  favored  with  Pro¬ 
fessor  Christlieb’s  special  sanction  and  assistance,  which 
have  also  been  extended  to  other  pa'rts  of  the  work.  For 
the  objects  mainly  kept  in  view  in  successive  portions  of 
this  important  Treatise,  and  for  some  changes  made  in  the 
present  translation,  which  may  almost  be  regarded  as  a 
third  edition  of  the  original  work,  the  reader  is  referred  to 
the  author  s  own  account  of  them  in  the  following  Preface. 
In  addition  to  what  is  there  said,  the  reader’s  attention  may 
also  be  invited  to  the  valuable  Exposition  of  the  Scriptural 
Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  Section  A  (pages  244.-265)  of  the 
Fourth  Lecture.  t.  l  k. 


r 


PREFACE. 


— ♦ - 

SOOX  after  the  appearance  of  the  Second  Edition  (consider¬ 
ably  enlarged)  of  the  German  original  of  these  Lectures^ 

I  received-  inquiries  from  various  quarters,  both  in  the  United 
Kingdom  and  in  America,  as  to  my  intention  to  promote  their 
translation  into  English.  These  inquiries  convinced  me  that, 
though  calculated  in  the  first  instance  to  meet  the  special 
needs  of  thinking  people  in  Germany,  my  work  might  yet 
prove  useful,  and  supply  a  want  that  Avas  sensibly  felt  else¬ 
where.  Nothing,  indeed,  can  be  more  evident  than  that  there 
is  everywhere  in  the  present  day  a  certain  community  of  in¬ 
terests  in  the  ranks  both  of  Christianity  and  Unbelief, — no 
noteworthy  production  appearing  anywhere  now  on  either  side 
without  soon  being  made,  by  means  of  translations,  the  com¬ 
mon  property  of  like-minded  readers  in  all  languages.  We 
all  know  too  well  how  much  injury  German  Eationalism  and 
Infidelity  have  done  to  the  cause  of  Christ  in  other  lands.  It 
seems,  therefore,  to  be  a  special  obligation  re.sting  on  faithful 
orthodox  theologians  in  Germanv  to  endeavour  to  extend  their 
influence  beyond  the  limits  of  their  own  Eatherland,  and  to 
show  to  Christian  students  in  other  countries  what  weapons 
and  tactics  they  have  found  most  useful  in  repelling  tlie 
assaults  of  Unbelief  among  themselves.  In  the  present  in¬ 
stance  I  had,  moreover,  peculiar  motives  for  encouraging  and 
aiding  an  English  translation  of  my  book.  It  is  noAV  ten 
years  ago  (the  Avinter  of  18G3— 4),  that,  being  then  pastor  of 
the  German  congregation  in  Islington,  I  delivered  (at  the 
Albion  Hall,  London  Wall)  my  first  series  of  public  lechircs 
in  defence  of  Christianity.  These  lectures  Avere  addressed  to 
the  educated  Germans  of  London  generally,  and  a  portion  of 
the  groundwork  of  the  present  series  AA^as  laid  in  that  early 
'  Moderne  Zwelj'el  am  Christlichen  Glauhcn.  Bonn  :  A.  Marcus,  1870. 


niEFACE, 


•  •• 

Vlll 

effort  to  set  forth  a  systematic  plan  of  Christian  apologetics. 
I  may  say,  therefore,  that  this  translation  does  in  a  certain 
way  carry  back  to  England  a  production  whose  first  beginnings 
took  their  rise  in  that  country. 

The  three  main  sources  of  Modern  Doubt  in  respect  to  the 
chief  points  of  Christian  belief  and  verity,  may  be  found  in 
some  of  the  vaunted  principles  and  assumed  results  of  meta¬ 
physical  philosophy,  historical  criticism,  and  natural  science. 
AVith  the  first  (Lect.  I.— V.),  and  in  part  with  the  second  of 
these  sources  {c.g.  the  modern  critical  theories  of  the  gospel 
history  and  the  Origines  of  early  Christianity,  Lect.  VI.-VIII.), 
I  have  dealt  in  such  a  way  that  the  whole  argument  is  made 
to  turn  on  one  main  central  point,  the  Scriptural  and  Chris¬ 
tian  conceptions  of  the  Divine  Nature.  It  has  been  my  chief 
endeavour,  by  treating  first  of  the  fundamental  relations  be¬ 
tween  Ileason  and  Eevelation  (in  Lect.  II.),  and  discussing  the 
non-scriptural  conceptions  of  modern  Speculative  Theology 
(Lect.  III.),  to  lead  on  the  inquirer’s  mind  to  this  one  great 
central  idea  (as  carefully  developed  in  Lect.  IV.),  and  then  to 
avail  myself  of  the  positions  so  obtained  in  dealing  with  the 
question  of  miraculous  agency  (Lect.  y.),  and  other  points 
made  matters  of  dispute  by  our  modern  negative  historical 
criticism.  In  the  lecture  on  Ileason  and  Ilevelation  I  have 
purposely  avoided  entering  on  the  subject  of  the  Inspiration 
of  Scripture.  My  motive  for  such  abstinence  was  tliis.  I 
believe  the  decided  separation  (and  not  mere  distinction)  now 
established  between  the  idea  of  Ilevelation  on  the  one  hand, 
and  that  of  Scriptural  Inspiration  on  the  other,  to  be  a  real 
gain  for  modern  Dogmatic  Tlieology,  though  by  the  popular 
mind  the  terms  are  still  regarded  as  almost  identical  in  mean- 
ing.  Another  motive  for  such  omission  was,  that  I  have  long 
determined,  and  still  hope  to  be  able,  to  deal  with  the  general 
question  of  the  Inspiration  of  Scripture  and  special  points 
therewith  connected  {e.g.  the  genesis  and  credibility  of  par¬ 
ticular  books),  as  well  as  with  the  objections  raised  by  the 
votaries  of  natural  science  to  Scripture  teaching  on  such 
points  as  the  Creation,  the  Deluge,  the  Descent  of  Man,  etc.,  in 
a  second  scries  ot  Apologetic  Lectures.  The  preparation  of 
such  a  course  I  have  already  undertaken,  and  its  completion 
as  soon  as  may  be,  in  the  midst  ot  other  arduous  professional 


PKEFACE. 


ix 


duties,  I  shall  endeavour  constantly  to  keep  in  view.  The 
present  English  translation  of  this  iny  first  series  differs  from 
the  second  German  edition  of  1870,  partly  by  the  curtailment 
of  various  passages  which  seemed  likely  to  be  of  less  interest 
for  English  and  American  readers,  and  partly  by  some  minor 
additions,  and  the  mention  of  important  works  which  have 
since  appeared  on  either  side. 

It  is  now  becoming  more  and  more  evident  every  day  that 
Christian  faith  stands  in  need  of  a  more  extended  line  of 
defence,  addressed  in  various  suitable  forms  to  the  different 
sections  of  modern  society.  Whereas,  when  in  former  times 
objections  were  raised  to  the  truths  and  facts  of  Christianity, — 
first  in  England,  then  in  Erance,  and  finally  in  the  German 
fatherland, — it  was  generally  assumed  that  the  challengers  of 
llevelation  ought  to  bear  the  burden  of  proof,  the  tables  are 
now  turned,  and  those  who  still  believe  anything  are  called  on  to 
justify  their  presumption  in  doing  so.  Experience,  moreover, 
amply  shows  that  countless  as  are  the  smaller  apologetic  'writings 
composed  for  some  special  purpose  or  occasion,  they  are  almost 
invariably  short-lived,  while  more  comprehensive  works  cover¬ 
ing  the  whole  ground  are  as  yet  by  no  means  numerous. 
Popular  works,  moreover,  in  defence  of  Christianity,  calculated 
to  meet  the  needs  of  uncultured  readers,  however  much  good 
they  may  do  in  their  own  sphere,  cannot  satisfy  the  wants  of 
the  thoroughly  educated,  who,  more  intimately  acquainted 
with  the  arguments  on  the  other  side,  feel  that  a  victory  too 
easily  won  really  leaves  the  battle  unfouglit. 

It  is  true  that  professed  apologists,  like  Luthardt  (whose 
lectures  are  well  known  by  translations  both  in  England  and 
America),  have  addressed  themselves  in  some  respects  to  these 
higher  needs.  Still  I  have  found  many  intelligent  laymen 
who  were  far  from  being  satisfied  by  a  few  remarks  on  certain 
cardinal  questions,  such  as  the  relations  between  Eeason  and 
Pevelation,  the  pantheistic  and  other  philosophical  conceptions 
of  God,  the  possibility  of  the  miraculous,  etc.,  much  to  the 
point  as  those  remarks  might  be  ;  and  from  this  I  liave  been 
led  to  conclude  that  in  some  quarters  a  need  was  still  felt  of 
something  beyond  what  had  hitherto  been  effected  by  Christian 
apologists.  This  need  I  would  fain  meet  by  my  treatment  of 
these  fundamental  questions  in  the  present  work.  Inclinations 


X 


PREFACE. 


and  wants  differ  greatly.  Some — and  these  form  the  majority 
— wish  to  have  everything  compressed  into  the  smallest  po.ssible 
compass,  and  ihcir  wants  are  already  well  attended  to.  But 
others — if  not,  perliaps,  very  many  amongst  the  laity — are 
willing  to  expend  time  and  trouble  in  studying  the  disputed 
points.  To  such  I  trust  these  lectures  may  prove  of  some 
service.  They  are  not,  it  will  be  seen,  intended  to  be  “  popular” 
in  the  broadest  meaning  of  the  word.  They  are  primarily 
addressed,  not  to  the  great  body  of  uncultured  or  half-cultured 
readers,  but  to  earnest-minded  inquirers  among  the  really 
cultivated,  who  are  accustomed  to  think  logically,  and  wliose 
mental  powers  I  have  accordingly  in  some  passages  pretty 
severely  taxed.  I  have,  however,  throughout  endeavoured  to 
make  myself  widely  intelligible,  as  well  as  to  preserve  the 
scientific  character  of  the  work ;  and  I  venture  to  hope  that  it 
may  be  of  some  use  to  students  of  divinity  and  other  younger 
men  at  our  universities  generally,  by  conducting  them  to  at 
least  a  preliminary  acquaintance  with  the  most  important 
theological  questions  of  the  day.  Infidelity  is  now,  both  in 
Germany  and  elsewhere,  especially  fond  of  Amunting  itself  as 
being  “  science  ”  pur  excellence;  and  the  influence  exercised  by 
the  deluge  of  anti-Christian  literature  and  journalism  threatens 
to  lead  many  from  among  our  educated  circles  to  ignore  the 
fact  that  a  Christian  science  and  philosophy  still  exists  to  do 
battle  for  the  claims  of  Christian  faith.  At  such  a  time  it  is 
both  our  duty  and  our  privilege  to  witness  more  particularly 
to  men  of  thought  and  culture  amonq-  us,  and  to  give  them 
clear  and  thorough  proofs  that  in  Christ  are  indeed  “  hidden 
all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  of  knoAvledge;”  that  unbelief, 
in  fighting  against  Christ,  rejects  the  truth,  and  that  in  reject¬ 
ing  the  truth  it  contradicts  science.  Doubly  necessary  must 
this  be  in  an  age  which  evinces  more  and  more  clearly  that 
all  the  great  intellectual,  political,  and  social  “  questions  ” 
by  which  society  is  agitated,  must  finall}^  be  resolved  into  the 
one  great  problem  of  the  truth  of  Christianity. 

Towards  the  fulfilment  of  this  ennobling  apologetic  task,  I 
would  fain  contribute  my  owm  liumble  efforts.  I  have  every- 
wdiere  endeavoured  to  achnowlcdge  ichat  is  true  in  the  vieivs  of 
my  opponents ;  and  that  tlie  more,  because  I  not  un frequently 
missed  such  acknowdedginent  in  other  apologetic  W'orks.  Error 


PREFACE. 


X] 


is  always  assuredly  a  mixture  of  truth  and  falsehood,  nor  can 
he  overcome  so  loim  the  elements  of  truth  which  it  contains 

O 

are  unacknowledged,  and  not  carefully  separated  from  what  is 
false.  On  the  other  hand,  I  have  sought  strictly  to  avoid 
unreal  compromises — such  as  those  attempted  by  a  certain 
school  in  Germany — between  Christianity  and  modern  thought, 
believing,  as  I  do,  that  they  must  invariably  result  in  detri¬ 
ment  to  both  sides ;  nor  have  I  ever  knowingly  allowed  myself 
to  polish  off  the  sharp  angles  of  the  One  Corner-stone.  Every¬ 
where  have  I  found  it  necessary  fearlessly  to  indicate  the 
fundamental  conditions,  both  moral  and  religious,  for  the  recep¬ 
tion  of  our  faith,  and  at  the  same  time  to  maintain  in  its  full 
force  the  distinction  between  “  believers  and  unbelievers,” 
vdiich  our  opponents  have  of  late  attacked  more  boldly  than 
ever.  It  is  a  sad  token  of  religious  laxity  and  indefiniteness 
that  men  should  try  to  efface  the  clear  line  of  demarcation 
here  drawn  by  Scripture,  and  to  change  the  decided  colours 
into  mere  shades.  If  there  be  no  essential  difference  in  iliis 
matter,  then  there  is  none  at  all,  and  the  whole  strife  has  been 
waged  in  vain  I 

hlo  genuine  apologetic  science  can  neglect  this  distinction ; 
but  for  that  very  reason  it  cannot  expect  to  succeed  in  bringing 
back  at  once  the  world  as  a  whole  to  a  belief  in  Christianity. 
Things  moral  and  spiritual  cannot  be  mathematically  demon¬ 
strated,  still  less  can  divine  truths.  lie  who  said,  “  My 
thoughts  are  not  as  your  thoughts,”  has  embodied  in  ilis 
Avords  and  actions  a  far  higher  logic  than  that  Avhose  prin¬ 
ciples  Aristotle  laid  down.  The  acceptance  of  His  truths 
cannot  be  forced  on  any  by  mere  reasoning ;  least  of  all  on 
tho.se  Avho  have  not  the  vrill  to  believe,  and  Avho  therefore 
have  never  inquired  earnestly  as  to  the  way.  Even  oral  lec¬ 
tures  in  defence  of  Christianity,  as  far  as  my  experience  goes, 
are  but  rarely  visited  by  persons  of  the  latter  class.  The 
greater  part  by  far  of  those  avIio  attend  such  lectures  consists 
of  professed  believers  and  churcli-goers ;  and  they,  too,  are  the 
chief  readers  of  apologetic  Avorks.  In  them  they  seek  for 
armour  against  the  attacks  of  infidelitv,  or  for  instruction 
AA'liich  shall  enable  them  to  attain  a  clearer  insight  into  the 
grounds  of  their  belief  Ilut  even  if  such  Avorks  should. 
]>as3  comparatively  unnoticed  by  conhrmed  sceptics,  yet  should 


XU 


PREFACE. 


furnish  iveapons  to  those  icho  still  hold  to  their  faith,  strengthen- 
ino;  tlieir  coiiraire  and  enabling  them  to  fight  the  good  fight ; 
this  would  be  a  full  reward  for  the  labour  expended  on  them, 
and  a  good  service  rendered  to  the  Church  of  Christ. 

In  conclusion,  therefore,  I  would  in  all  humility  commend 
these  feeble  efforts  to  the  Lord,  that  He  would  accompany 
them  in  their  workings,  both  among  friends  and  enemies,  with 
His  benediction.  If  what  I  have  written  should  not  avail  to 
bring  back  many  doubters  to  the  faith,  it  may,  nevertheless, 
instruct  believers  as  to  the  certainty  of  the  convictions  which 
they  have  embraced,  the  stedfastness  of  the  foundation  on 
which  they  stand,  and  assure  them  of  a  complete  and  final 
victory.  The  Lord  needs  not  us  or  our  efforts  in  His  cause. 
He  who  in  His  own  person  is  the  Truth  itself,  is  at  once  Faith’s 
argument,  Faith’s  object,  and  Faith’s  pledge  of  ultimate  triumph. 
Onlj^  His  people  must  believe  in  that  triumph  it  they  would 
one  day  share  in  it,  and  that  the  more  confidently  when  the 
course  of  this  world  seems  to  render  it  most  improbable. 
Tlieir  faith,  indeed,  in  Truth’s  final  victory  is  already  that 
Victory’s  inauguration ! 


Boxu,  January  1374 


THEODOEE  CHRISTLIEB. 


CONTENTS. 


FIEST  LECTUrtE. 

THE  EXISTING  BllEACII  BETWEEN  MODERN  CULTURE  AND 

CHRISTIANITY. 


•  PAGB 

Inteoduction,  ...» . 1-3 

I.  Causes  of  the  Beeach, . 2-27 

Causes  Historical,  3-9;  Pliilosopliical,  9-12;  Ecclesiastical,  12-22; 
Political,  22-25  ;  Social  and  Ethical,  25-27. 

II.  Peesent  Extent  of  the  Breach, . 27-31 

In  Church  and  School,  27-30  ;  in  Literature  and  Journalism,  30-33  ; 
Infidelity  in  England,  33,  34. 

III.  Can  THE  Breach  BE  FILLED  UP  ?  .......  34-67 

Nature  of  Christianity  as  the  source  and  exponent  of  all  true  Culture, 
34-39  ;  Unity  of  Culture  and  Christianity  proved  from  the  true  nature 
of  the  former,  39-43  ;  General  historical  proof  of  this  Unity,  IS¬ 
IS  ;  Special  historical  proof  in  re.spcct  of  the  German  nation,  48-53  ; 
Practical  result,  53-55  ;  Our  present  task — wrong  and  right  method 
of  its  accomplishment,  55-59  ;  Need  and  special  vocation  of  tlie 
/  Teutonic  races  to  i-econcile  this  great  antithesis,  59-63  ;  Prospects 
of  success,  63-07. 


SECOND  LECTUEE. 

REASON  AND  REVELATION. 

Whence  do  ave  derive  our  Knoavledge  of  God  ?  .  ,  .  .  68,  69 

I.  Natural  Theology,  or  the  Knoavledge  of  God  derived  from 

Nature  and  Reason,  .  .  .  ...  .  .  .  70-94 

PiC.ason ;  its  Eights,  its  Nature,  its  Limitation  according  to  Philosophy 
and  Scripture,  its  Present  Condition — is  it  a  material  source  of  know- 


XIV 


CONTENTS. 


PAG3 

ledge,  or  merely  a  perceptive  faculty?  70-76  ;  Historical  achieve¬ 
ments  of  Reason  in  Religion  and  Philosophy  as  a  proof  of  its 
insulllciency,  76-Sl  ;  Natural  Science,  81-S3  ;  Conscience  ;  its 
Nature  and  its  Purport,  83-86  ;  Necessity  of  Revelation  proved  from 
the  historical  aberrations  of  Conscience,  86-89  ;  Moral  and  Religious 
need  of  Man — His  feeling  of  Guilt  and  moral  Dualism,’ 89-94. 

II.  SrPEKNATURAL  TlIEOLOGY,  Olt  THE  KNOWLEDGE  OF  GOD  DERITED 

FROM  Revelation, . 94-123 

Pievelation  :  its  Nature  and  Object— its  Inner  Laws,  94-99  ;  Objec¬ 
tions  :  to  the  specific  value  of  Revelation,  99-100  ;  to  its  Necessity 
(Lessing  and  the  Education  of  the  Human  Eace) — impossibility  of  a 
Religion  more  perfect  than  Cliristiauitj^  100-109;  Positive  arguments 
for  the  possibility  of  a  Revelation,  109-112  ;  Objections  raised  by 
Strauss,  Grimm,  Schenkol,  Rousseau,  112-116  ;  Can  a  Revelation  be 
recognised  as  .such  ?  (against  the  objections  of  Kant,  Fichte,  and 
Lessing),  116-121  ;  Revelation  as  a  manifest  Reality,  121-123. 

III.  Relation  between  Revealed  Religion  and  Natural  Theo¬ 

logy,  .  124-135 

Falsity  of  the  antithesis  between  Faith  and  Knoivledge — all  Knowledge 
conditioned  by  Faith,  124-127  ;  Impossibility  of  a  contradiction 
between  Reason  and  Revelation — Necessity  that  Reason  should  be 
guided,  regulated,  and  supplemented  by  Revelation — Faith  the 
highest  act  of  Re.sson,  127-129  ;  Subordination  of  Reason  to  Revela¬ 
tion — Revelation  as  the  Lamp  which  must  regulate  Conscience- 
Illustrated  by  the  Magi  in  Bethlehem,  129-135. 


THIED  LECTUEE. 

MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD. 

Present  Condition  of  the  Controversy  resrecting  the  Idea  of 

God, . 136-138 

I.  Atheism,  .  .* . 138-144 

Historical  manifestations — Goddess  of  Reason — German  Atheists,  138- 
140  ;  Universal  prevalence  and  ji.sychological  necessity  of  the  Idea 
of  God — Intuitive  certainty  of  the  Divine  e.xistence,  140-143  ;  Im¬ 
possibility  of  proving  the  non-existence  of  God — Arrogance  and 
futility  of  Atheism,  143,  144. 

II.  M.vterialism, . 145-161 

Principles  and  History— Scientific  Impotence,  145-148  ;  Examination 
of  the  main  propo.sitions  of  IMatcrialism  ;  (n)  Is  Sensuous  Perception 
the  only  source  of  Knowledge  ? — Case  of  I.aura  Bridgman,  148-151  ; 

\b)  Is  Mind  merely  an  activity  and  ellcct  of  matter  ?—Rela1  ion 


CONTENTS. 


XV 


PAG-K 

between  brain  and  thought — Specific  distinction  between  mental 
life  in  man  and  that  of  beasts — Why  animals  can  form  no  distinct 
general  conceptions — Moral  and  religions  disposition  of  man— Self- 
conscioiTsness  of  the  human  spirit,  151-156 ;  Consequences  of 
materialistic  principles — Destructiv^e  influence  on  religion  and  edu¬ 
cation — Denial  of  Free-will  annihilates  morality — Elements  of  truth 
in  Materialism,  156-161. 

III.  Pantheism,  . . 161-190 

Principles  and  connection  with  Polytheism,  161,  162  ;  Spinoza  and 
Ilegel,  162-161.  Scientific  untenableness  of  Pantheism  :  (a)  Shown 
by  Philosophy  and  Logic — Unproved  assumptions  and  internal  con- 
ti'adictions  in  Spinoza  and  Hegel’s  concejitions  of  God,  161-168; 
'Whence  our  Personality? — Personality  no  Limitation,  but  a  Neces¬ 
sity  for  the  Absolute,  168-171  ; — (b)  Shown  by  contemplation  of  the 
visible  universe — Cosmological  and  teleological  proof  of  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  God,  171-171 ;  Corroborations  furnished  by  modern  Natural 
Science — Unconscious  wisdom  a  contradiction  in  terms — Animal 
instinct — "Witness  of  History,  171-181 ; — (c)  Shown  by  the  history 
of  all  Pieligions — Universal  tendency  to  form  personal  conceptions 
of  their  Deities,  181-183  ; — (c7)  Shown  by  first  principles  of  Ethics 
and  Eeligion — AVhence  our  conscience,  sense  of  moral  obligation, 
religious  consciousness  ? — Necessity  of  a  personal  God  for  the  moral 
order  of  the  universe,  183-185  ;  Pantheism  denies  the  freedom  of 
the  "Will,  undermines  Morality,  and  destroys  the  Personal  Eesponsi- 
bility  of  Man,  185-188  ;  Ecsults — Elements  of  Truth  in  Pantheism, 
188-190. 

1"V.  Deism  and  Rationalism, . lCO-209 

Pi’inciples  and  histoiy,  190-193.  Scientific  untenableness — Conflicting 
Elements,  193,  194.  Counter  Arguments  :  (a)  Theological — Deism 
deprives  God  of  His  Divinitjq  194-197  ;  (5)  Cosmological — Creation 
no  longer  dependent  upon  God — The  creatures  limit  the  Creator- 
Apparent  support  allbrded  to  Deism  by  Natural  Science,  197-203  ; 

(c)  Ethical — Deism  deprives  the  moral  world  of  its  centre  and 
main  support — "Worthlessness  of  the  Deist’s  God — Irrationality  of 
Rationalism,  203-  208  ;  Elements  of  truth  in  Deism  and  Rationahsm, 

208,  209, 


rOUETH  LECTUEE. 

THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCRIPTURE  AND  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

1,  Biblical  Theism, . 210-210 

Exclusion  of  the  errors  of  Atheism,  Materialism,  Pantheism,  Deism, 
and  Rationalism,  210-213 ;  The  Divine  names  Elohim  and  Jehovah, 


XVI 


CONTENTS. 


FAG8 

213-216;  Union  of  all  elements  of  Truth  contained  in  the  non- 
h  hlioal  conceptions  of  God,  216-219.  Bihlical  Idea  of  God  :  (n)  Its 
intrinsic  trntli — God  as  Spirit,  Love,  Father,  219-225  ;  (b)  Its  con¬ 
sonance  with  Reason,  225-227;  (c)  Its  bean ty — Jehovah  Sabaotli — 
Holy  Love,  227-232;  Anthropomorphic  and  other  difficulties  in  the 
Old  Testament,  232-240. 

II.  Trixitarian  Conception  OF  THE  Divine  Nature,  .  .  .  240-284 

Deficiencies  in  certain  ecclesiastical  definitions  ol  the  dogma — Unity  and 
manifoldness  of  the  Divine  Nature  according  to  Scripture,  240-244. 

(A)  Scripture  testimonies,  244 — {a)  Respecting  the  Father,  245; — (5) 

The  Son — Christ’s  witness  to  His  own  consubstantiality  and  filial 
subordination,  246-248 ;  Apostolic  testimonies  to  the  Divine  personal 
pre-existence,  and  filial  subordination  of  the  Son,  248-251  ; — (c)  The 
Holy  Ghost — Indication  of  personality  in  attrilnites  and  activities, 
not  identical  witli  the  human  spirit,  consubstantial  with  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  251-254  ; — (d)  The  Trinity  as  a  whole — The  Baptismal 
formula,  etc. — Ontological  or  economical  Trinity  ?  254-257  ;  Indica¬ 
tions  of  the  Trinity  in  the  Old  Testament,  257-261 ;  Combined  opera¬ 
tion  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost— Tritheism  excluded — Results 
and  retrospect,  261-265.  {B)  Collateral  supports  of  the  doctrine  de¬ 

rived  from  Science  :  (a)  From  the  history  of  other  religions — A  Trinity 
of  Deities  in  the  religions  of  heathendom,  266-268  ;  Lifelessne.ss  of 
Abstract  Monotheism,  268,  269  ; — (6)  Theological  and  Cosmological 
advantages  of  the  Trinitarian  Conception,  269-271  ; — (c)  Arguments 
drawn  from  Speculative  Theology,  271-275  ; — (d)  Analogies  from 
Human  Nature,  the  laws  of  thought,  and  the  visible  universe,  275- 
278  ; — (e)  The  Trinitarian  Idea  in  Modern  Philosophy  as  a  kej'^  to  its 
ultimate  problems,  278-280  ;  Moral  necessity  for  the  acceptance  of 
this  Doctrine,  and  final  appeal  to  Conscience,  2S0-284. 


FIFTH  LECTUFE. 

THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES. 

Miracles  the  greatest  stumbling-block  to  the  spirit  of  our  Age — the  con¬ 
sequences  of  their  Negation  :  Annihilation  of  all  Religions,  and  ol  the 
Jloral  Personality  of  Man — Fundamental  importance  of  the  question, 
285-290. 

1.  N.4TURE  AND  Pos.siKiLiTY  OF  Miracles, .  290-312 

(a)  Nature  of  Miracles — Wider  and  naiTower  senses  of  the  term — 
Essential  points  in  the  Conception,  290-294;  (5)  Origin  of  the  Nega¬ 
tion  of  Miracles,  294-298  ;  (c)  Theoretical  presupposition  and  funda¬ 
mental  error  in  this  Negation,  298-300;  (d)  Possibility  of  the  IMira- 
culous — Is  it  a  “rent  in  Nature’s  harmony”? — Laws  of  Nature  not 


CONTENTS. 


XVil 


.  PAGE 

fiiispeiiJcd  by  Miracles,  300-309 ;  Miracles  often  an  intensification 
of  natural  forces — Power  and  freedom  of  God  —  Are  Jliracles  an 
“  after- lielp  ”  in  the  gOA'ernnicnt  of  the  Universe  ?  309-312. 

II.  Necessity  and  Histoeical  Manifest.vitons  of  the  MiEACti- 

Lou.s, . .  .  312-330 

Internal  aim  of  Miracles  a  redemptive  one — Miracles  not  an  unnatural 
breach  in  Nature,  but  a  supernatural  interruption  of  the  unnatural — 
Their  necessity  for  the  redemption  and  consummation  of  the  World, 
312-316  ;  Domain  of  the  Miraculous — its  educational  purpose  in  the 
scheme  oi  Picdemption  as  an  accompaniment  and  confirmation  of 
Pevelation,  316-318  ;  Gradual  historical  manifestations  of  the 
^Miraculous — Christ  the  Centre  of  Development,  and  the  Second  Great 
Jliracle  after  the  Creation — History  of  the  Miraculous— Its  strict 
subjection  to  Divine  laws,  318-323  ;  Distinguishing  marks  of 
genuine  Miracles — Eeality  of  tlie  Scriptural  Miracles,  323-326  ; 
Objections  raised  by  Spinoza  and  Hume — Result,  326-330. 

III.  Aee  Miraculous  Manifestations  STILL  Youciisafed  ?  .  .  330-339 

Reasons  for  their  discontinuance — Distinction  to  be  made  between  tlie 
period  of  the  Church’s  foundation  and  that  of  her  continued  ex¬ 
istence,  330-332  ;  Instances  of  the  Miraculous  in  the  history  of 
Jlodern  Missions,  332-335  ;  Miraculous  cures  and  answers  to  Prayer, 
335-337  ;  The  denial  of  the  Miraculous  involves  a  belief  in  greater 
prodigies,  337-339. 


SIXTH  LECTUEE. 

MODERN  ANTI-MIRACULOUS  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 


The  Christological  Problem,  the  gi’eat  Theological  question  of  the  present 
day — Variety  in  the  Rationalistic  methods  of  treating  the  life  of  Christ 
— All  comViine  in  the  denial  of  the  Miraculous — Rationalism  and  Mythi- 
cisra,  310-3-15. 

I.  Old  Rationalistic  Accounts  of  the  Life  of  Christ,  .  .  315-353 

Principles — Pauliis— Gleanings  from  Rationalistic  exegesis,  315-318  ; 
Futile  attem])ts  at  natural  explanation — Impossibility  of  eliminating 
the  supernatural  from  the  Gospel  histoiy,  318-353. 

II.  Schenkel's  “Sketch  OF  the  Character  OF  Christ,”  .  .  353-379 

Treatment  of  the  Gospel  records  —  Self-contradictory  caprice  therein 
displayed,  353-358  ;  Denial  of  the  Godhead  of  Christ — Attempt  to 

b 


xvin 


CONTENTS. 


PAQil 

describe  our  Lord’s  human  development,  358-362  ;  Half  rafonal- 
istic,  half  mythical  explanation  of  the  miracles  of  Christ,  3G2-36G  ; 
Arbitrary  treatment  of  our  Lord’s  discourses— Ill  success  in  solving 
the  enigma  of  Christ’s  Messianic  consciousness,  366-371  ;  Mania 
for  discovering  traces  of  development  in  the  character  of  Christ, 
371-374;  Keim’s  History  of  “Jesus  of  Nazara  ”  (Note),  373-375  ; 
How  Schenkel  degrades  our  Lord’s  moral  character—  Deceptive  use 
of  the  term  “Redeemer,”  374-379. 


III.  Stkaiiss’ “  Life  OF  CiiKisT,” .  379-425 

Origin  of  the  mythical  theory — Grohmann  (1799)  the  forerunner  of 
Strauss,  379-381;  First  edition  of  1835 — Origin  of  the  I\[ytlis — Prin¬ 
ciples  and  Method — Replies,  381-385;  The  edition  of  1864 — Funda¬ 
mental  tendency  and  arran.eement,  385-387  ;  Historical  residuum 
of  the  Life  of  Christ,  387-391  ;  Formal  ion  of  Myths,  391-393  ;  S  yle 
of  the  P)Ook — Critique  of  Gospel  narratives,  393-396  ;  Examination 
ot  the  work — Pantheistic  principles  and  assumption  that  the  Super¬ 
natural  is  impos'ib'e,  396-399  ;  The  Myth  a  mere  means  for  getting 
rid  of  the  Jliraculous — Arbitrary  and  unhistnrical  ]irocedure — Ex¬ 
amination  of  his  method,  399-402  ;  Question  as  to  the  possibdity  of 
the  formation  of  ilytbs,  402-406  ;  Impos.-ibility  of  the  invention  of 
tlie  portrait  of  Chri.-t,  406,  407  ;  Historical  difficultii-s  of  the  mythi¬ 
cal  tlieoiy — Behaviour  of  the  first  opponents,  and  of  the  primitive 
Courches,  407-409  ;  St.  Paul’s  confirmation  of  the  Gospel  Miracles 
— Their  modest  cliaracter,  409-411  ;  Strauss’  view  of  the  Person  of 
Christ — Pantheistic  incarnation  of  the  Godhead — The  ide  d  Christ 
sui'Stituted  for  the  historical,  and  peiverse’y  subordin  ded  to 
humanity  as  a  vrhole,  411-415  ;  Wf/enee  the  belief  in  *^he  Messiah- 
ship  of  Christ  without  miracles? — How  could  Myths  form  around 
a  merely  human  teacher? — Whence  the  higher  view  foinid  in 
Christ’s  te>timony  respecting  His  own  Person?  415-419;  Strauss’ 
attack  on  the  Sinlessness  of  Cfirist — Weak  point  of  his  construction 
cf  history— 0})tical  illusion  of  the  mytliical  theory,  41!?-422  ; 
Origin  of  the  Christian  Cluu’ch  left  unexplained,  422-425. 


IV.  Rexak’s  “  Vie  DE  Jesus,”  425-440 

Origin  .and  character  of  the  Bo''k,  425-428  ;  Sketch  of  the  puTJic  life 
of  Christ  in  three  periods,  428-433  ;  Examination  of  Renan’s  })icture — 
Denial  <4  our  L"rd’s  Sinlessness  — Perversion  of  the  history,  433-436  ; 
Fanciful  interpolations — Incapacity  for  historical  researcli — Obscura¬ 
tion  of  moral  consciousness,  436-440. 

Conduslon,  440-447  : — Accusation  brought  against  us  by  the  anti- 
miraculists — Their  profession  of  belii  f  in  Christ  compared  with  that 
of  the  Church — Their  surrender  of  Christianity,  440-443  ;  Scientific 
weakness  and  untenableness  of  our  opponents’  position — Something 
,  yet  to  be  learned  from  them — The  Church’s  need  of  further  Christo- 
logical  development,  443-447. 


CONTENTS. 


XIX 


SEVENTH  LECTUEE. 

MODERN  DENIALS  OF  THE  EESUltRECTlON. 

PAGE 

I.  Akti-Miraculous  Theories, .  448-107 

Resurrection  refers  to  the  body,  not  to  the  spirit — Importance  of  ihe 
body  in  the  plan  of  salvation,  448-452  ;  Strauss  accei'ts  this  as  the 
crucial  question — Daur  evades  it,  452-455  ;  Rationalistic  hypothesis 
of  apparent  death,  455-457  ;  The  visionary  hypothesis — Sclieiikel’s 
wavering  treatment,  457-460  ;  Renan’s  explanation,  4C0-4G3  ; 
Strauss — how  he  invalidates  the  witness  of  the  New  Testament 
— Origin  of  the  “  Resurrection  Myths,”  463- 4G7. 

II.  The  Historical  Testimonies, .  467-490 

The  Revelation  of  St.  John — The  Gospel  narratives — Their  discre¬ 
pancies — Their  inutuHl  suppbinentation — Ten  appearances  of  the 
risen  Saviour.  467-469  ;  Essential  agreement  between  the  narra¬ 
tives,  469-474 ;  Nature  of  the  resurrection-body,  474-476  ;  'The 
testimony  of  St.  Raul,  1  Cor.  xv.,  476-478  ;  Appearance  of  Christ 

to  St.  Paul  before  Damascus,  as  related  in  the  Acts,  478-481  ;  Exe- 
getical  arguments  (Irom  the  Epistles)  and  psychological  Objections 
against  the  tlieoiy  (of  Baur,  Holsten,  and  Strauss),  that  this  ivas  a 
merely  inward  occurrence,  481-487 j  St.  Paul  neither  a  visionary 
nor  an  epileptic,  487-490. 

III.  Collapse  OF  THE  “  Visionary  Hypothesis,”  ....  490  503 
St.  Paul’s  conversion  and  history — Belief  of  the  Disciples  in  Christ's 

bodily  resurrection — Novelty  of  the  idea  of  an  individual  resui  rec- 
tion  in  a  glorified  body,  490-492  ;  Possibility  of  a  visionary  illusion 
affecting  five  hundred  Disciples  at  once  not  to  be  assumed— Great 
difierence  between  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Saviour  and  mere 
visions  as  related  in  the  New  Testament — Why  did  these  appear¬ 
ances  continue  for  only  so  short  a  time?  492-495  ;  “The  'I'hird 
Day  ’’.too  early  a  date  for  the  development  of  visionary  illusions — 
Disappearance  of  our  Saviour’s  body,  495-498  ;  Elleets  of  the  Re¬ 
surrection  on  the  Disciples  and  the  ivorld — Sudden  revolution  on 
the  Disciples’  frame  of  mind — A  moral  regeneration  of  tlie  world 
not  the  effect  of  visionary  self-deception,  498-500  ;  Result — The 
visionary  hypothesis  overthrown  by  dililculties  excgetical,  psycho¬ 
logical,  dogmatical,  chronological,  topographical,  historical,  and 
moral,  500-502  ;  Positive  couuterprools  for  the  necessity  of  the  Re- 
smrection,  502,  503. 


EIGHTH  LECTUEE. 

THE  JIODERN  CRITICAL  THEORY  OF  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY. 
The  Tuebingen  School,  and  its  Founder  F.  C.  Baur,  .  .  .  504-506 

I.  The  Principles  of  the  Tuebingen  School,  ....  506-517 
Influence  of  Hegel — Baur’s  anti-miraculous  conception  of  history — 


XX 


C0XTENT3. 


FASk 

Naturalistic  explanation  of  the  Origines  of  Christianity,  506-509  ; 
Demonstration  of  historical  analogies — Christianity  merely  the  com- 
hination  of  pre-(ihristian  elements  of  truth — Its  purely  spiiitiial 
character,  509-514;  Primitive  Christianity  an  Ebionitic  develop¬ 
ment  of  Judaism — Separation  from  this  of  a  Universalist  schism 
under  St.  Paul — Antithesis  of  Petrinism  and  Paulinism — Critical 
treatment  of  the  New  Testament  writings,  514-517. 


II.  Critique  AND  Eefutation  OF  THIS  Theory,  ....  517-547 

Its  pretended  freedom  from  dogmatical  presuppositions — Its  philo¬ 
sophical  assumptions  —Onesided  conception  of  the  nature  of  Chris¬ 
tianity — True  specific  difference  between  Christianity  and  all  previous 
religious  developments,  517-519  ;  Its  supernatural  origin  — Elements 
of  truth  in  Barn's  deductions,  519-524  ;  Their  liistorical  deficien¬ 
cies  :  Person  and  self-consciousness  of  Christ,  Belief  of  the  Disciples, 

St.  Paul’s  conversion,  all  left  unexplained — What  is  Paul  without 
Christ  ?  524-528  ;  Antithe.sis  in  the  apostolic  age  not  fundamental, 
and  solved  by  the  Apostles  themselves,  529-532  ;  Three  stages  of 
development  in  primitive  Christianity — The  principle  of  univer- 
salism  extant  from  the  very  first — Later  divisions,  533-536  ;  Baur’s 
critique  of  the  New  Testament  books — Belief  of  primitive  Chris¬ 
tianity  in  the  Godhead  of  Christ — Impossibility  of  transferring  the 
Books  of  the  New  Testament  into  the  Second  Century — Pielation  of 
the  Fourth  to  the  Three  First  Gospels,  536-541  ;  Confusions  result¬ 
ing  from  Baur’s  theory — Analogy  between  him  and  Darwin — 
Accumulation  of  difficulties  through  dislike  of  the  Miraculous — Sub¬ 
stitution  of  philosophical  criticism  for  historical — Dissolution  of  the 
Tubingen  School,  541-547. 


Conclusion, 


647-549 


MODERN  DOUBT  AND  CHRISTIAN  BELIEF. 


I — 

FIEST  LECTUEE. 

THE  EXISTING  BREACH  BETWEEN  MODERN  CULTURE 
AND  CHRISTIANITAL 

OUE  German  forefathers  had  a  grand  old  legend  connected 
with  the  terrific  battle  of  Chalons,  at  which,  in  the 
middle  of  the  fifth  centuiy,  the  combined  forces  of  Visigoths 
and  Eomaiis  obtained  a  sanguinary  triumph  over  tlie  invading 
hordes  of  Attila.  ’  The  bloody  work  of  the  sword  was  done, 
and  the  vast  plain  strewed  with  countless  hea])S  of  dead.  But 
for  three  nights  following — so  ran  the  tale — the  spirits  of  the 
slain  might  be  discovered  hovering  over  the  scene  of  their 
late  encounters,  and  continuing  their  ruthless  conflicts  in  the  air. 
The  like  has  been  the  case  with  the  age-long  war  still  waged 
against  the  gospel,  which,  if  at  first  conducted  mainly  with  the 
sword,  has  now  resolved  itself  into  endless  conflicts  of  opposing 
spirits.  To  give  you  some  insight  into  the  present  condition 
of  this  world-wide  struggle,  more  enduring  and  more  significant 
than  any  material  conflict,  and  lead  you  by  the  hand,  as  it 
were,  to  those  parts  of  the  battle-field  where  the  hottest  strife 
is  raging,  wEl  be  my  endeavour  in  the  following  Lectures. 
And  first,  we  must  take  a  survey  of  the  mighty  field  itself,  or, 
in  other  words,  make  ourselves  acquainted,  so  far  as  may  be 
in  a  single  view,  with  the  full  extent  of  the  existing  breach 
between  our  modern  culture  and  Christianity. 

That  such  a  breach  exists,  needs  surely  no  proof  from  me. 
thousands  of  educated  persons  now  feel  themselves  compelled, 
as  by  an  essential  requirement  of  modern  intellectual  culture, 
to  assume  a  critical  position  towards  the  whole  of  Christianity, 
so  far  as  it  transcends  the  sphere  of  merely  natural  or  rational 
religion,  regarding  it  as  an  indubitable  sign  of  defective  culti- 

0^00  o 

A 


2 


MODEltN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  [lECT.  I. 


ration  or  narrow-minded  partisanship,  when  any  one  professes 
an  unreserved  adherence  to  all  the  articles  of  the  Christian 
faith.  Great  masses  of  so-called  “  cultivated  ”  persons  in  Ger¬ 
many  may  be  said,  indeed,  to  entertain  a  deep-seated  mistrust  of 
all  that  is  positive  in  Christian  faith,  even  though  still  acknow- 
led2:in"  the  truth  and  obligation  of  Christian  morals.  Such 
doctrines  of  the  gospel  as,  for  instance,  the  Trinity,  the  Incar¬ 
nation,  the  Atonement,  are  quietly  demurred  to  by  these 
people,  or  put  aside  as  mere  anachronisms,  about  which  the 
present  generation  hardly  needs  to  trouble  itself.  Have  they 
not  read  in  numerous  popular  books  and  novels,  papers  and 
periodicals,  and  heard  asserted  in  every  educated  circle,  by  how 
many  social  authorities  these  and  the  like  doctrines  are  now 
openly  impugned  ?  The  first  discovery  that  it  was  so,  and 
the  assurance  with  which  it  was  proclaimed,  may  indeed  have 
startled  some  a  little.  But  by  degrees  they  got  used  to  the 
current  expression  of  sceptical  opinions,  and  to  appeals  on  their 
behalf  to  the  imposing  authority  of  great  scientific  and  philo¬ 
sophic  names,  so  as  in  the  sequel,  from  fear  of  being  laughed 
at  in  educated  circles  for  their  childlike  credulity,  to  be  found 
ready  to  surrender  bit  by  bit  the  wdiole  religious  faith  of  their 
fathers.  The  first  thing  given  up  would  of  course  be  the  per¬ 
sonal  existence  of  the  Evil  One  ;  then  (for  the  sake  of  Balaam’s 
ass,  or  Joshua’s  address  to  the  sun  and  moon,  or  the  Mosaic  his¬ 
tory  of  creation)  the  authority  of  the  Old  Testament;  then, 
one  after  another,  single  miracles  of  the  Hew  Testament;  and 
finally,  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord’s  divinity.  His  resurrection 
and  ascension,  and  all  the  other  revealed  foundations  on  which 
Christian  faith  is  built. 

Serious  and  alarming  as  such  a  condition  of  things  must  be 
for  every  one  who  regards  it  in  the  light  of  past  history  and 
of  the  prophetic  word,  it  will  avail  -  nothing  to  make  these 
phenomena  a  mere  subject  of  lamentation.  We  must  have 
the  courage  to  look  them  in  the  face,  and  endeavour  to  com¬ 
prehend  their  true  significance.  Spinoza’s  word  applies  here : 
“  Human  things  are  neither  to  be  laughed  at  nor  -wept  over ; 
our  duty  is  to  understand  them.”  But  this  can  only  be 
accomplished  in  the  present  case  by  a  careful  investigation  of 
the  historical  and  other  causes  wdiich  have  conspired  to  produce 
the  present  alienation  of  modern  society  from  Christian  faitli. 


LECT.  I.] 


CAUSES  OF  THE  BEEACIT. 


3 


We  must  inquire,  therefore,  first.  What  may  he  the  histori¬ 
cal  and  ethical  factors  by  which  the  existing  breach  between 
Culture  and  Christianity  has  been  gradually  formed  ?  and 
secondly.  How  wide  and  how  deep  this  breach  at  present  may 
be  ?  A  summary  answer  to  these  questions,  which  of  course 
is  all  that  could  be  attempted  here,  may  nevertheless  enable 
us,  with  our  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  Christianity  and  of 
Modern  Culture,  to  suggest  an  answer  to  a  third  question, 
Whether  at  all,  and  how  far,  this  breach  can  be  closed  ? 


I. - CAUSES  OF  THE  BBEACII. 

These  may  be  classed  under  the  following  heads  :  His¬ 
torical,  Scientific,  Ecclesiastical,  Political,  Social  and  Ethical,  to 
each  of  which  w'e  must  now  devote  a  brief  attention. 

CL  And  first,  the  Historical.  Modern  unbelief  is  only  in 
part  a  new  phenomenon.  It  stands  in  the  closest  connection 
with  similar  movements  in  all  past  times,  of  which  it  is  the 
natural  outcome  and  result.  Christianity  has  never  existed  in 
the  wmrld  without  experiencing  opposition,  nor  deceived  itself 
by  expecting  it  to  be  otherwise.  “  This  same  is  set  for  a  sign 
that  shall  he  s'policn  againstf  cried  aged  Simeon  at  the  first 
contemplation  of  the  child  Jesus.  And  the  history  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  closes  with  the  witness  of  the  Jews 
in  Home :  “  Concerning  this  sect,  ive  know  that  everyiohere  it  is 
spoken  against!'  To  what  a  height  the  contradiction  rose  in 
the  period  embraced  by  this  twofold  testimony,  may  be  seen  in 
the  histories  of  the  Lord’s  passion,  and  of  the  persecutions  of 
the  early  Church  and  His  first  disciples.  Each  apostle  enters 
on  his  mission  prepared  for  the  extremest  conflicts.  “  We 
preach  Christ  crucifiedf  exclaims  St.  Paul,  “  to  the  Jews  a 
stumbling  -  block,  and  to  the  Greeks  foolishness!'  The  first 
encounter  betw’een  Christian  truth  and  heathen  culture  i^ 
recorded  in  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  the  Acts,  wdiich  tells 
how  fearlessly  St.  Paul  proclaimed  strange  and  unwelcome 
truths  in  the  metropolis  of  classical  refinement,  and  in  the 
hearing  of  the  leaders  of  the  old  systems  of  philosophy.  From 
that  moment  the  gospel  was  assailed,  not  only  by  the  fanatical 
hatred  of  the  Jew  and  the  -  unscrupulous  violence  of  Poman 


4  MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  [lECT.  L 

statecraft,  but  also  by  the  intellectual  weapons  of  Hellenic 
literature  and  science. 

Cynics,  Epicureans,  and  Heo-Platonists  produce  elaborate 
treatises  in  disproof  of  Christianity.  Celsus  attacks  it  with 
considerable  acumen  as  an  imposition.  Lucian,  a  thorough 
unbeliever  in  all  religious  systems,  pours  out  his  scorn  on 
Christianity  as  “  the  latest  folly  in  the  world’s  great  mad¬ 
house,”  and  ridicules  its  martyrs.  Christian  writers  find  it 
necessary  to  give  their  treatises  in  defence  of  the  gospel  a 
scientific  shape,  and  a  valuable  apologetic  literature  is  gradually 
formed  amon"  the  Greek  and  Latin  Lathers. 

O 

After  three  centuries  of  conflict,  victory  finally  declares 
herself  on  the  side  of  the  new  religion.  Christianity  triumphs 
in  the  Eoman  Empire,  and  gradually  absorbing  the  remains  of 
the  old  classic  culture,  derives  therefrom  a  powerful  impulse 
towards  the  production  of  a  new  Christian  form  of  civilisation 
in  the  west.  And  even  here  the  first  be^innin^s  of  an  occi- 
dental  Christian  philosophy  are  found  to  generate  or  foster 
doubts  as  to  the  proofs  or  evidences  of  some  of  the  verities  of 
Christian  faith.  The  subtle  doctors  of  medieval  scholasticism 
arc  seen  to  move  uneasily  in  the  fetters  of  ecclesiastical  dogma, 
and  it  ofttimes  taxes  the  most  strenuous  efforts  of  a  powerful 
hierarchy  to  conceal  or  cover  over  the  yawning  gulf  between 
faith  and  science.  The  antagonists  of  revealed  truth  are 
henceforth  to  be  found  within  the  Christian  camp  itself,  and 
their  attacks  become  in  consequence  the  more  formidable. 

The  great  Protestant  Pteformation,  with  all  its  added  strength 
to  the  cause  of  faith,  will  be  likewise  found  to  have  introduced 
fresh  elements  of  danqer.  We  now  see  the  "reat  religious 
principle  of  man’s  personal  responsibility,  though  maintained 
by  the  Eeformers  in  the  strictest  subordination  to  the  supreme 
authority  of  the  divine  rvord,  aiming  more  and  more,  under 
humanistic  and  other  influences,  at  unlimited  self-assertion, 
«nd  gradually  emancipating  itself  from  every  kind  of  authority, 
even  upon  fundamental  articles  of  faith.  The  conditions  of 
tlie  conflict  are  now  changed.  Whereas  in  former  times  the 
various  elements  of  the  old  classical  culture  and  philosophy 
had  opposed  themselves  to  Christianity  as  something  young 
and  new,  so  now  henceforth  Christianity  and  its  articles  of 
faith  are  regarded  as  old  and  obsolescent  by  the  advocates  of 


LECT.  I.] 


CAUSES  OF  THE  BEEACII. 


5 


modern  cultivation  and  science.  It  is  tlie  cliildren  rising  up 
in  strife  against  an  aged  mother. 

It  was  not,  however,  till  towards  the  end  of  the  seventeenth 
century  that  free  modes  of  thought  began  to  obtain  any  sensiljle 
influence  with  the  common  people.  But  now,  the  more  cold 
and  lifeless  Church  orthodoxy  had  become,  and  the  more  all 
sound  theological  inquiry  was  again  degenerating  into  scholastic 
subtleties,  the  greater  was  the  impulse  felt  to  proceed  with 
rapid  strides  from  freedom  of  conscience  to  unrestrained  free- 
thinking.  Such  thinkers  as  Descartes,  Spinoza,  Pufendorf, 
Thomasius,  Bayle,  Leibnitz,  and  Wolf,  proceeded  with  more  or 
less  temerity  to  unsettle  all  traditional  religious  convictions, 
and  in  some  cases  to  destroy  their  very  foundations ;  while 
a  new  presumptuous  popular  philosophy  of  sound  common 
sense  (so  called)  began  to  develope  an  almost  open  hostility  to 
the  revealed  doctrines  of  all  churches. 

In  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  Italy  had  taken  the 
lead  in  the  development  of  free  thought;  in  the  seventeenth 
and  eighteenth,  England  and  France  are  the  first  to  show  the 
way.  In  England,  from  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  to  that 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  one  portion  after  another  of  the 
great  body  of  Christian  faith  is  dissolved  in  the  crucible  of 
a  Hobbes  or  a  Hume,  or  under  the  attacks  of  the  long- 
series  of  the  English  deists, — Herbert  of  Cherbury,  Poland, 
Collins,  Woolston,  Shaftesbury,  Tindal,  Chubb,  Bolingbroke, 
and  others.  Unitarians  having  begun  with  the  denial  of  the 
Trinity  and  the  Incarnation,  these  deists  soon  follow,  first  with 
the  rejection  of  the  prophecies  and  miracles  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  and  then  of  those  of  the  Hew,  as  opposed  to  reason  and 
the  laws  of  nature ;  and  finally,  with  the  denial  of  a  special 
Providence,  or  any  possibility  of  a  divine  revelation.  From 
about  the  year  1690  to  the  rise  of  Methodism,  and  the  conse¬ 
quent  revival  of  evangelical  religion  in  the  Church  of  England 
and  among  Protestant  Dissenters,  it  might  be  said  that  in 
many  a  circle  of  English  society  the  denial  of  all  that  was 
specifically  Christian,  or  in  excess  of  the  axioms  of  natural 
religion,  had  come  to  be  regarded  as  a  sign  of  superior  intelli¬ 
gence,  and  the  maintenance  of  contrary  opinions  as  a  proof  of 
being  quite  behind  the  progress  of  the  times,  as  one  so  often 
hears  remarked  in  a  similar  spirit  in  German  circles  now. 


6 


MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  [LECT.  I. 


These  results  of  English  free-thinking  were  speedily  intro¬ 
duced  into  Trance  by  Condillac  and  others.  Jesuitism  had  in 
that  country  been  slowly  but  surely  undermining  all  the  foun¬ 
dations  of  true  religion  and  morality.  Pascal,  the  man  of 
conscience  (a  Protestant  without  knowing  it),  and  Malebranche, 
were  the  last  philosophers  in  France  who  reverenced  Chris¬ 
tianity.  The  Grand  Monarquc,  whose  influence  formed  the 
character  of  the  whole  century,  based  his  supremacy  in  Europe 
on  a  culture  which  consciously  derived  its  forms  and  principles, 
not  from  the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  but  from  that  of  Greek  and 
Poman  civilisation.  The  general  apostasy  from  Christian  faith 
thus 'induced  was  for  a  time  concealed  (under  the  prevailing 
Jesuit  influence)  by  the  outward  forms  of  a  ceremonial  religion, 
wdiile  secretly  dilfusing  itself  among  the  pO'lished  circles  of 
Parisian  society.  Political  interests,  and  not  religious,  were 
henceforth  the  motive  powers  in  the  public  life  of  Europe, 
which  became  more  and  more  secular  and  humanistic.  Pe- 
ligious  indifferentism,  rapidly  degenerating  into  selfish  pleasure¬ 
seeking  and  grosser  forms  of  immorality,  became  the  prevalent 
temper  in  French  social  circles, — a  phenomenon  which  is  not 
wanting  among  those  characteristic  of  our  own  time. 

It  was  not,  however,  till  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century  that  all  reverence  for  the  teaching  and  witness  of  the 
Church  was  openly  abandoned.  Voltaire  now  appears  upon 
the  scene.  Exercising  almost  absolute  control,  through  the 
force  of  genius,  over  the  intellect  of  Europe,  and  from  the  first 
directing  inexhaustible  stores  of  wit  and  raillery  against  reli¬ 
gion,  he  did  more  than  any  other  man  of  his  age  to  promote 
the  spread  of  unbelief  among  the  people.  The  annihilation  of 
positive  Christianity  Voltaire  regarded  as  his  great  object  in 
life.  The  heroes  of  the  Pible  were  for  liim  mere  knaves  and 
fools,  and  the  Gospel  history  a  tissue  of  fables,  fit  only  for 
“  cobblers  and  tailors.”  Luther,  the  Augustinian  monk,  opposed 
indulgences  out  of  mere  partisanship.  “  Had  only  Leo  x. 
committed  the  sale  to  him  and  his  order  instead  of  the  Domi¬ 
nicans,  we  should  have  had  no  Protestants  !  ”  Morality  and 
progressive  civilisation  were  to  be  regarded  as  much  more 
indebted  to  classic  paganism  than  to  Christianity ;  and  it  is  to 
ignorance  of  the  gospel  in  the  Chinese  Empire  tliat  we  may 
attribute  the  superiority  of  that  people  to  ourselves  in  morals. 


LECT.  L]  causes  OF  XHE  LREACII.  7 

$ 

philosophy,  and  general  culture  !  Could  only  the  Chinese 
religion  of  pure  deism  be  adopted  throughout  Euroj)e,  it  would 
put  a  speedy  termination  to  all  our  miseries  and  disputes^ 
Notwithstanding  all  this  wretched  superficiality  and  perfidious 
perversion  of  historic  truth,  Voltaire  succeeded  in  carrying  the 
whole  mind  and  spirit  of  his  age  along  with  him.  Matters 
reached  such  a  pass  at  length,  that  the  most  frivolous  assailant 
of  Christianity  was  more  honoured  and  listened  to  than  the 
most  intelligent  of  its  advocates.  Doubts  and  arguments 
against  the  gospel  were  accepted  without  examination,  while 
aught  urged  in  its  defence  was  condemned  unheard :  pheno¬ 
mena  of  which  we  have  again  a  repetition  in  our  own  time. 
Take,  for  instance,  among  many  other  examples,  the  French 
Encyclopcedists  and  Materialists ;  a  Diderot  with  his  axiom, 
“True  religion  is  to  have  none  at  all;”  a  La  Mettrie  announc¬ 
ing  to  the  world  that  it  will  never  be  happy  till  atheism 
becomes  universal ;  the  Systhm  de  la  Nature,  according  to 
which  man  is  no  longer  composed  of  body  and  spirit,  but  of 
mere  material  substances ;  and  finally,  the  fatal  convulsion  of 
the  French  Eevolution  (the  after-shocks  of  which  are  still  felt 
in  France  and  Europe),  with  its  impudent  assaults  on  the 
whole  fabric  of  Christian  faith  and  morals,  down  to  the  very 
existence  of  the  Christian  calendar, — take  only  these  examples, 
and  you  will  see  how  unbelief  in  the  last  century  passed 
through  the  same  stages  and  arrived  at  the  same  results  as 
now :  beginning  with  doubts  and  difficulties  about  Christian 
miracles  and  gospel  mysteries,  it  ended  with  complete  negation 
of  the  divine  and  spiritual,  the  very  existence  of  God  Himself, 
and  of  any  moral  and  spiritual  life  in  man.  The  laws  of 
historical  development  are  inexorable.  The  seed  sown  was 
Jesuitical  morality  and  superstition:  the  harvest  reaped  was 
materialism  and  infidelity. 

In  Germany,  the  general  influences  of  the  spirit  of  the 
time  were  most  profoundly  felt.  The  mere  name  of  Frederick 
the  Great,  “  the  philosopher  of  Sans  Souci,”  friend  and  patron 

*  Compare  especial! j*,  Voltaire  et  son  temps.  Etudes  sur  le  ISt^me  sihcle,  par 
L.  F.  Bungener.  Bomaii  Catholics  often  complain  that  unbelief  is  a  mere  pro¬ 
duct  of  Protestantism.  Quite  lately  Bishop  Dupanloup,  in  his  book  Atheism 
and  the  Social  Danger,  says  ;  “  Protestantism  began  the  work  of  unbelief  in 
Europe.”  A  comparison  between  the  piet}!-  of  Luther  and  the  frivolity  of  Pope 
Leo,  or  the  mere  name  of  Voltaire,  is  enough  for  a  refutation  of  this  silly  charge. 


8 


WODEllX  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  [lECT.  I. 


of  Voltaire,  is  enough  to  indicate  how  great  the  influence  must 
have  been  of  French  intellectual  culture  in  our  own  land. 
And  what  the  French  literature  of  unbelief  did  for  the  general 
public,  English  literature  accomplished  among  the  learned. 
Itationalism,  however,  properly  so  called,  i.e.  the  denial  of  all 
dogmas  which  seem  incredible  to  the  ordinary  understanding, 
is  an  outgrowth  of  our  own  soil.  The  Leibnitz- Wolfian  philo¬ 
sophy,  which  laid  the  foundation  for  a  mechanical  superficial 
treatment  of  Christian  doctrines,  contributed  largely  to  the 
general  alienation  from  Christian  faith.  A  sort  of  natural 
religion  began  to  be  taught  both  in  upper  and  lower  schools,  in 
which  it  was  endeavoured  to  demonstrate  the  principles  of 
Christian  faith  entirely  by  those  of  natural  reason.  Eevealed 
religion,  under  this  process,  soon  appeared  to  become  a  super¬ 
fluity,  and  whatever  in  it  could  not  be  demonstrated  by  reason 
was  quietly  abandoned. 

The  most  powerful  attacks  in  Germany  on  the  faith  of  the 
Church -were  made  during  the  second  half  of  the  last  century, 
when  Eationalism  had  already  gained  the  upper  hand.  The  so- 
called  Wolfciibiittel  Fragments,  published  by  Lessing,  shook  the 
faith  of  many  in  the  truth  of  revelation,  and  especially  in  the 
cardinal  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  representing 
the  whole  of  our  Lord’s  life  and  teaching  as  mere  human 
phenomena.  The  notorious  Bahrdt,  of  sottish  memory,  first 
professor  and  finally  publican  (tl792),  endeavoured,  by  an 
admixture  of  vulgar  sentimentality,  to  convert  our  Lord’s  life 
into  a  kind  of  romance  somewhat  after  the  fashion  of  Eenan. 
And  finally,  Nicolai,  in  his  Allgcmeim  Deutsche  Bihliothck,  the 
most  popular  literary  periodical  of  the  time  (1 765-1 805),  made 
it  his  business  to  cast  a  reproach  of  superstition  or  sus2)icion  of 
crypto- Jesuitism  on  all  that  went  beyond  the  very  baldest 
rationalistic  morality.  At  such  a  time,  when  even  ministers 
of  the  Church,  conforming  to  the  general  taste,  chose  for  the 
subjects  of  their  sermons  points  of  general  morality  or  natural 
science,  the  pursuits  of  agriculture,  or  the  benefits  of  vaccina¬ 
tion,  v/e  cannot  wonder  at  its  becoming  the  general  conviction 
that  tlie  breacli  between  modern  culture  and  Christianity  was 
complete  and  final. 

Such  was  the  inheritance  which  the  present  century  re¬ 
ceived  from  its  predecessor.  Can  we  wonder  at  its  prevailing 


LECT.  I.] 


CAUSES  OF  THE  BREACH. 


9 


unbelief,  even  without  the  accession  of  olher  fresh  causes  of 
such  alienation  ?  Among  these  we  proceed  to  mention — 

h.  Secondly,  The  Modern  Scientific,  or  rhilosopliical. 

Several  branches  of  modern  science  have  received  since  the 
early  years  of  the  present  century  a  very  rapid  and  brilliant 
development,  which  has  largely  contributed  to  widen  the 
breach  between  Modern  Culture  and  Christianity.  Of  these 
we  may  mention  Mental  Science  or  Metapliysical  Philosophy, 
the  Historical  Criticism  of  Scripture,  and  several  branches  of 
Natural  Science. 

The  general,  but  at  first  indefinite,  aim  of  the  eighteenth 
century  to  resolve  revealed  religion  into  mere  morality,  and 
the  cardinal  articles  of  Christian  faith  into  abstract  ideas, — as 
of  God,  of  freedom,  of  immortality,  and  the  like, — received 
towards  its  close  a  definite  expression  and  scientific  form  from 
one  whose  speculations  constituted  a  fresh  epoch  in  the  history 
of  philosophy — Immanuel  Kant.  This  earnest  thinker  always 
spoke  of  the  Bible  and  Christianity  with  the  deepest  reverence 
and  respect.  It  was  his  honest  endeavour  to  hold  fast  the 
faith  in  God,  in  freedom,  and  in  immortality  as  indispensable 
requirements  of  “  practical  reason,”  and  to  limit  the  excesses  of 
philosophical  speculation  by  denying  to  “  pure  reason  ”  (reason 
proper)  the  right  or  power  of  making  positive  determinations 
in  things  divine.  Yet  this  notwithstanding,'  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  he  contributed  a  powerful  impulse  to  religious 
doubt,  by  laying  down,  and  endeavouring  with  great  force  and 
subtlety  to  prove  (in  his  Critique  of  Pure  Beason),  that  those 
ideas,  when  practically  applied,  wmuld  lead  only  to  erroneous 
and  illogical  consequences  :  that  the  idea  of  God,  for  instance, 
depends  upon  a  chain  of  illogical  conclusions,  and  that  all 
received  arguments  for  the  existence  of  God  are  untenable. 
You  will  easily  see  what  encouragement  such  speculations 
must  have  given  to  any  floating  doubts  on  the  truth  and 
certainty  of  positive  religion. 

AVith  Kant’s  successors,  Fichte  and  Schelling,  these  efforts 
of  speculative  reason  were  .under  much  less  restraint;  and 
even  the  sacred  triad  of  God,  freedom,  and  immortality,  Avhich 
Kant  had  endeavoured  to  maintain  by  appeals  to  practical 
reason,  was  absorbed,  along  wuth  the  idea  of  Divine  Personality, 
in  an  all-confounding  idealistic  Pantheism.  This  last  received 


10 


MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  [lECT,  L 


from  Hegel  its  final  development,  who  maintained  that  the 
development  of  the  universe  consists  in  the  inner  logical  pro¬ 
cess  hy  which  thought  proceeds  from  consciousness  to  self- 
consciousness, — pure  absolute  unqualified  Being  having  first 
to  be  developed  into  Nature  before  it  can  pass  into  its  higher 
form  of  self-conscious  Spirit. 

But  such  metaphysical  speculations,  utterly  unintelligible 
without  profound  study,  would  have  had  small  influence  on 
the  general  public,  but  for  their  reproduction  in  more  genial 
and  comprehensible  forms  in  our  classical  literature.  From 
Schiller,  ardent  student  as  he  was  of  the  Kantian  philosophy, 
onwards  to  Heine  (long  an  enthusiastic  adherent  of  Hege¬ 
lianism)  and  his  English  and  American  compeers,  Carlyle  and 
Emerson,  we  find  innumerable  views  and  utterances  in  the 
works  of  poets,  orators,  and  historians  which  owe  their  origin 
'to  those  philosophical  systems.  Hence  in  the  present  day  we 
meet  so  many  educated  persons  whose  faith  in  tlie  personal 
Deity  has  resolved  itself  into  a  belief  in  “  the  moral  order  of 
the  universe,”  or  in  some  universal  “  law  ”  or  principle,” 
from  which  there  may  not  indeed  be  much  to  hope,  but  also 
— and  that  is  something — very  little  to  fear.  Many  who 
know  nothing  more  of  Kant  or  I’ichte  than  one  or  two  much- 
abused  phrases,  consider  themselves  raised  by  their  philosopliic 
insight  above  any  necessity  of  submission  to  the  dogmas  of 
revealed  religion. 

But  it  is  not  so  much  philosophical  speculation  as  histori¬ 
cal  criticism  from  wliich  the  present  generation  derives  its 
unbelief  Truths  which  rest  on  plain  facts  of  history  are  not 
in  the  long  run  to  be  successfully  impugned  by  mere  specula¬ 
tions.  But  assaults  which  threaten  to  shake  the  historical 
foundation  on  which  they  stand  are  much  more  formidable. 
And  such  have  been  those  most  frequently  -undertaken  in  our 
own  times.  The  conflict  is  now  removed  from  the  field  of 
mere  speculative  reasoning  to  that  of  historical  criticism  of  the 
Origines  of  Christianity.  Two  Swabian  celebrities,  Strauss 
and  Baur,  here  lead  the  way.  Strauss,  proceeding  from  a 
pantheistic  point  of  view,  and  an  absolute  denial  of  the  pos- 
sibility  of  miracles,  represented  in  his  Life  of  Jesus  (first 
published  more  than  thirty  years  ago)  the  whole  Gospel  his¬ 
tory  as  in  all  its  essential  portions  a  mere  chain  of  myths. 


LECT.  I.] 


CAUSES  OF  THE  BEEACII. 


11 


products  of  tlie  inventive  fancies  of  the  first  disciples  and  the 
early  Cliurch,  and  made  special  elforts  to  annihilate  in  detail 
the  various  miraculous  accounts  by  a  skilful  combination  of 
minute  discrepancies  in  the  Gospel  narratives.  A  fresh  re¬ 
vision,  or  rather  the  reproduction  of  the  original  work  in  a 
popular  form,  is  that  which  has  more  recently  appeared  under 
the  title  of  TIic  Life,  of  Jesus  for  the  German  People.  Baur, 
on  the  other  hand,  starting  from  similar  Hegelian  views  of  the 
nature  of  historical  developments,  endeavoured  in  a  series  of 
acute  and  profoundly  learned  treatises  to  divest  Christianity 
of  its  claims  to  any  supernatural  origin,  by  representing  it  as 
the  natural  product  and  combination  of  innumerable  pre- 
Christian  forms  of  thought,  belief,  and  expectation.  In  his 
historical  investigations  concerning  the  New  Testament,  he 
arrived  at  the  result  that  all  its  books,  excepting  only  four 
epistles  of  St.  Paul  (Ptomans,  1  and  2  Corinthians,  and  * 
Galatians),  with  the  Eevelation  of  St.  John,  are  spurious  pro¬ 
ductions  of  an  age  about  a  century  later  than  that  of  the 
apostles  and  evangelists  to  vdiom  they  are  assigned.  The 
strenuous  efforts  now  everywhere  made  to  popularize  such 
matters  has  brought  at  any  rate  the  names  of  these  and 
similar  works  by  disciples  of  Strauss  and  Baur  to  the  know¬ 
ledge  of  almost  every  educated  person  in  Germany ;  while 
Benan’s  (the  French  Strauss)  Vie  Jc  translated,  as  it  has 
been,  into  all  the  languages  of  Europe,  and  everywhere  dissemi¬ 
nated  in  forms  ridiculously  cheap,  has  found  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  readers  in  the  lowest  grades  of  society. 

Of  the  thorough  and  searching  examination  to  which  these 
works  have  been  subjected  in  the  replies  of  Neander,  Tholuck, 
Ullmann,  Ebrard,  and  many  others,  few  except  professed  theo¬ 
logians  seem  to  have  even  heard,  and  fewer  still  have  given 
themselves  the  trouble  to  investigate  the  matter  for  themselves. 
Hence  the  assumption  now  so  common  among  educated  and 
half-educated  people  in  Germany,  that  the  mythical  character 
of  the  Gospel  narration,  and  the  spuriousness  of  most  of  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  are  points  no  longer  admitting 
of  any  serious  question.  Very  few,  indeed,  in  ordinary  social 
circles  would  seem  to  be  aware  that  the  monstrously  arbitrary 
assumptions  of  Strauss  in  his  Leben  Jesu,  the  weakness  of 
his  critical  assaults  on  the  historical  sources  of  the  Gospel 


12 


MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 


[lect.  L 


narrative,  and  the  scientifically  untenable  character  of  his  much- 
vaunted  results,  have  long  ago  been  thoroughly  exposed,  and  that 
the  same  work  has  been  satisfactorily  accomplished  for  Baur’s 
elaborate  theories  of  the  nature  and  origin  of  primitive  Chris¬ 
tianity  by  a  long  series  of  orthodox  historians  and  expositors. 

But  this  is  not  all.  To  the  afore-mentioned  causes  of  our 
present  unbelief  you  must  add,  further,  the  enormous  influence 
of  modern  forms  of  that  natural  science  to  which,  in  prefer¬ 
ence  to  all  others,  the  materialistic  spirit  of  our  age  is  so  much 
inclined,  the  serious  doubts  raised  by  geology  as  to  the  truth 
of  the  scriptural  narrative  in  reference  to  the  Creation  and 
Delufie,  as  well  as  to  the  age  of  the  world  and  that  of  the 
human  race ;  the  objections  raised  on  the  score  of  astronomy 
to  biblical  representations  of  the  creation  of  tlie  heavenly  bodies 
and  the  position  of  our  earth  in  the  starry  universe ;  and  the 
doubts,  for  which  appeal  is  made  to  physiology  and  cognate 
sciences,  as  to  the  truth  of  the  scriptural  teaching  concerning 
the  derivation  of  all  human  races  from  a  single  pair.  Putting 
all  these  doubts,  objections,  and  assumptions  together,  and 
bearing  in  mind  the  boldness  and  assurance  with  which  they 
are  maintained,  and  the  attitude  assumed  by  modern  science 
generally,  with  its  claim  even  in  its  latest  most  infantine 
forms  to  summon  all  other  teachers  of  truth  before  its  bar, 
you  will  have  a  comprehensive  though  superficial  view  of  the 
principal  historical  and  scientific  causes  which  have  led  to  the 
existing  breach  between  Modern  Culture  and  Christianity. 

But  even  these  are  not  all.  We  must  add  to  them — 

c.  Thirdl}^  Causes  Ecclesiastical.- — This  deplorable  breach, 
alas,  is  widened  by  the  unhallowed  labours,  past  and  present, 
of  the  Church  herself.  And  here  you  must  suffer  me  awhile 
to  pause  and  make  a  series  of  honest  though  painful  con¬ 
fessions. 

It  is  a  phenomenon  that  meets  us  in  the  earliest  history  of 
the  Christian  Church,  that  the  outbreak  of  heresies  goes  hand 
in  hand  with  the  loss  of  spiritual  life  in  the  Church  at  large ; 
that  the  rise  of  doubts  has  often  coincided  with  the  prevalence 
of  fruitless  controversies ;  and  that  open  opposition  to,  or  sepa¬ 
ration  from,  the  Church  universal,  has  been  the  consequence  of 
abuses  and  neglects  in  practice,  or  of  one-sidedness  and  exagge¬ 
ration  in  dogmatic  teaching.  How  has  the  Church  commonly 


LECT.  I.] 


CAUSES  OF  THE  BREACH. 


13 


acted  in  reference  to  such  opposition,  brought  upon  her  so 
frequently  by  her  own  fault  ?  Has  she  not,  both  in  earlier 
and  later  times,  been  all  too  ready  to  condemn  those  who 
differed  from  her  Avith  stern  anathemas,  and  to  call  in  the  aid 
of  the  secular  arm  to  enforce  obedience  from  the  unconvinced 
and  unwilling  ?  And  yet  how  much  better  would  it  have 
become  her  to  have  inquired,  when  opposition  rose,  what  fault 
of  her  own  might  have  given  it  occasion,  and  even  some 
measure  of  right !  How  well  Avould  she  have  done  in  en¬ 
deavouring  to  lay  down  from  the  very  first  a  broad  line  of 
demarcation  between  undoubted  and  unchangeable  Scripture 
truth  and  the  human  forms  of  ecclesiastical  practice,  which 
oftentimes  not  only  admit  of,  but  require  modification,  and  in 
seeking  to  establish  a  clear  distinction  between  what  is  the 
nucleus  and  centre  of  all  Christian  faith,  the  free  grace  of  G  od 
in  Christ,  and  doctrines  which,  belonging  more  to  the  circum¬ 
ference,  do  not  immediately  affect  the  foundations  of  the  faith  ! 
How  much  distrust  and  painful  doubt,  how  many  a  breach 
between  progressive  culture  and  retrogressive  theology,  be¬ 
tween  new  discoveries  of  science  and  one-sided  assertions  of 
misapplied  dogma,  might  have  been  thus  avoided ! 

What  was  it  in  the  middle  ages  that  led  so  many  nobler 
spirits  into  doubt  as  to  the  truth  of  Christianity  itself,  as  well 
as  to  contempt  of  the  existing  Church  system  ?  Was  it  not, 
on  the  one  hand,  the  grooving  moral  corruptions  of  the  Church, 
and  on  the  other  the  enslavement  of  men’s  minds  in  the 
bondage  of  the  letter  ?  And  so  it  came  to  pass  that,  under  the 
shadow  of  an  iron  scholasticism,  a  scarcely  disguised  infidelity 
had  gradually  developed  itself ;  and  in  the  very  metropolis  of 
medieval  Christianity,  Home  itself,  broke  out  occasionally  into 
open  mockery.  I  Avould  on  this  point  remind  you  merely  of 
the  characteristic  saying  attributed  to  Leo  X.  (1513-1521), 
‘  All  men  know  how  much  we  and  ours  are  indebted  to  the 
Christian  fable  ”  (shoAving  that  Straussiancr  existed  long  before 
Strauss),  and  of  the  decree  of  the  Lateran  Council,  under  the 
same  Pope,  that  one  must  really  believe  in  the  immortality  of 
the  soul !  So  thoroughly  at  that  time,  in  what  Avas  regarded 
as  tlie  very  heart  of  Christendom,  AA'as  the  edifice  of  Christian 
faith  shaken  to  its  Amry  foundations.  The  Church  haA'ing  lost 
all  sense  of  spiritual  freedom,  her  intellectual  servitude  was 


14 


MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  [lECT.  I. 


avenging  itself  by  tlie  rejection  of  every  kind  of  restraint,  and 
the  surrender  of  all,  even  divine  authority.  Unbelief  is  often 
a  mere  reaction  from  superstition  ;  and  for  the  existence  of  the 
latter  the  Church  itself  is,  in  the  first  place,  responsible. 

Similar  causes  are  still  at  work  in  the  Eoman  Catholic 
Church  in  widening  the  breacli  between  Culture  and  Christi¬ 
anity.  On  the  one  hand  is  the  moral  corruption  of  many 
priests  and  the  practical  abuses  of  the  convent  and  the  con¬ 
fessional  ;  on  ■  the  other,  the  retention  of  many  points  of 
medieval  superstition,  exposure  of  spurious  relics  on  the 
Ehine,  and  periodical  repetitions  of  miracles  in  Italy  which  no 
educated  person  can  any  longer  seriously  believe  in.  These 
things  tend  to  make  not  only  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church 
itself,  but  also  our  common  Christianity,  appear  to  many  both 
odious  and  ludicrous,  and  a  mere  institute  of  obscurantism. 

All  this  illustrates  the  important  observation,  that  doubt 
and  unbelief  assail  for  the  most  part,  not  the  pure  essence, 
but  the  corrupted  forms  of  Christianity.  The  corruptions  of 
the  Church  and  her  dogmatic  errors  supply  these  enemies 
with  their  most  formidable  w^eapons  of  offence  against  her. 
They  commit,  indeed,  the  error  of  confounding  the  Church 
with  Christianity ;  but  this  is  one  for  which  the  Church  her¬ 
self  must  be  held  in  large  measure  responsible,  identifying,  as 
she  often  does,  herself,  her  institutions,  and  her  customs  with 
the  very  fundamentals  of  Christianity,  so  making  it  difficult 
for  superficial  observers  to  distinguish  between  the  one  and  the 
other. 

If  from  the  Catholic  Church  we  turn  our  eyes  on  the  de¬ 
velopments  of  Protestantism,  we  meet  with  the  like  phenomena, 
though  in  a  less  degree.  What  was  it  that  in  the  last  century 
prepared  the  way  among  ourselves  for  the  prevalence  of  Eation- 
alism  ?  AVas  it  not  the  petrification  of  evangelical  faith  in 
the  dry  forms  of  a  dead  orthodoxy,  accompanied  by  an  almost 
total  cessation  of  all  further  efforts  for  the  diffusion  of  the 
gospel  ?  The  sermons  of  that  period  were  for  the  most  part 
dry  expositions  of  particular  doctrines,  accompanied  by  vehe¬ 
ment  attacks  not  only  on  other  churches,  but  also  on  many 
in  one’s  own  church  who  happened  to  differ  on  some  one  point 
or  other  from  the  confessional  standards,  e.g.  on  Crypto- Cal¬ 
vinists,  Syncretists,  Synergists,  Alajorists,  Aiitinomians,  Osian- 


LECT.  I.] 


CIUSES  or  THE  BEEACn. 


15 


drians,  Weigelians,  and  Arminians,  etc.  etc.,  making  one’s  head 
swim  with  the  hare  enumeration  of  the  various  “  isms  ”  which 
the  preacher  felt  himself  called  upon  to  denounce.  At  such 
a  time,  v/hen  a  cold  orthodoxy  w’as  almost  everywhere  being 
substituted  for  "living  faith,  when  slavish  adherence  to  the 
Church’s  standards  was  put  in  the  place  of  that  frije  inquiry 
into  the  sense  of  Scripture  which  the  first  Iieformers  had 
pursued,  and  a  fresh  bondage  of  the  letter  was  introduced,  it 
became  a  simple  necessity  for  energetic  minds,  like  Lessing, 
to  come  to  an  open  breach  with  traditional  Protestantism, 
“  which,  however  painful  in  the  making,  must  nevertheless  he 
regarded  as  providentially  ordained.”  Pationalism  was  in  a 
certain  degree  right  in  contending  for  simple  morality  in  op¬ 
position  to  theoretic  orthodoxy.  Truth  itself  was  divided ; 
the  orthodox  retained  one  portion,  their  assailants  another. 
The  claims  of  “  humanism,”  too  long  neglected  on  the  one 
side,  were  now  opposed  by  the  other  to  those  of  “  positive 
Christianity.”  JMorality,  too  long  unduly  depreciated,  was 
now  exalted  as  unduly  at  the  expense  of  faith.  One  extreme 
becfat  the  other. 

It  must  then  he  confessed  that  the  Church  theology  of  the 
last  century  deserves  the  chief  blame  for  the  general  apostasy 
which  then  he^an  from  the  ancient  faith.  And  this  defection 

O 

was  not  only  occasioned  by  the  Church’s  own  one-sidedness  ;  it 
was  adopted,  cherished,  and  promoted  by  the  Church  itself. 
I'rom  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  to  the  end  of  the  first  third 
of  tbe  nineteenth  century,  tlie  chief  authorities  in  pulpit  and 
university  were  promoters  of  Ptationalism.  If  we  have  now 
so  much  reason  to  deplore  the  prevalence  of  this  spirit  in  the 
educated  circles  of  our  town  populations,  and  its  spread  among 
the  lower  ranks  too,  we  have  only  ourselves  to  thank  for  it ; 
we  theologians  reap  that  which  ourselves  have  sown. 

We  often  complain  of  our  great  poets,  and  our  classical 
literature  in  general,  that  they  exhibit  such  indifference,  not  to 
say  hostility,  to  positive  Christianity.  Who  is  to  blame  for 
this  ?  Once  more — the  Protestant  Church  amongst  ourselves. 
How  could  it  he  otherwise,  than  that  those  great  and  leading 
spirits  should,  one  after  another,  turn  aside  and  separate  them¬ 
selves  from  her  ?  What  was  it  hut  the  cold  and  stifi’  morality, 
tha  ahsciice  of  all  spiritual  life  and  fervour,  and  the  hard. 


16 


MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  [lECT.  L 


unsympathetic  deism  of  our  preachers  and  theologians,  which 
repelled  ardent  and  poetic  minds  like  Schiller,  and  made  them 
turn,  as  he  does  in  the  Gods  of  Greece,  to  the  beautiful  forms 
of  ancient  paganism,  in  preference  to  the  days  of  a  degenerate 
Christianity  ?  Such  men  are  not' to  be  regarded  as  the  enemies 
of  Christianity,  but  only  of  its  rationalistic  form  as  then  pre¬ 
sented  to  theni.  Schiller,  in  the  poem  referred  to,  is  assailing 
not  the  religion  of  the  gospel,  but  the  vulgar  Eationalism  by 
which  it  was  defaced.  Perthes  is  perfectly  right  when  he 
says :  “  It  is  the  longing  of  a  noble  human  heart  which  there 
finds  utterance,  pouring  out  its  righteous  indignation  against 
formalists  and  mammon-worshippers,  and  striving  after  living 
communion  with  a  real  self-manifesting  God.  He  only  can 
mistake  Schiller’s  true  meaning  who  has  no  conception  of  the 
angry  feelings  which  inspire  the  man  who,  never  cheered  by 
any  true  teaching  as  to  the  faith  of  Christians,  cries  out  for 
help,  and  finds  it  denied  him ;  desires  intercourse  with  the 
living  God,  but  receives  from  his  age  no  other  revelation 
than  that  of  a  dumb  mechanical  idol  of  the  understanding, 
enthroned  in  mere  astronomical  sublimity  above  the  subject 
M'orld.”  Let  us  acknowledge,  then,  that  true  poetry  thirsts 
for  religion ;  that  if  our  own  great  poets  do  occasionally 
seem  to  be  in  any  measure  cognisant  and  receptive  of  the 
spirit  of  the  gospel,  it  is  because  they  learned  to  find  behind 
the  mask  of  a  degenerate  Church  the  nucleus  of  life  and  truth 

O 

which  there  lay  hidden ;  and  that  such  was  indeed  the  case 
from  Schiller  onwards,  with  his  profoundly  Christian  poem 
The  Song  of  the  Bell,  to  the  pious  Uhland,  Avho  thus  pours  forth 
the  longings  of  his  soul  for  “  the  Lost  Church ;  ” 

“  I  wander  tlirougli  the  wood  alone, 

No  trodden  path  before  me  lies  ; 

Tlie  world  I  leave  is  cold  and  dumb, 

To  God  I  lift  my  longing  eyes. 

I  listen  in  the  silent  wild, 

Till  notes  from  heaven  I  seem  to  hear ; 

And  as  my  longing  swells,  those  notes 
Seem  to  ring  out  more  full  and  clear.  ” 

But  all  the  heavier  responsibility  falls  on  the  Church  for 
having  had  no  answer  to  such  longings  as  these ;  all  the  more 
must  we  lament  the  misfortune  that  the  development  of  our 
greatest  poets  and  thinkers  should  belong  to  an  age  in  which 


LECT.  I.] 


CAUSES  OF  THE  BFEACH. 


17 


the  Church  had  nothino;  to  tell  them  of  a  true  and  livino- 
Christianity,  and  could  only  present  them  with  its  cold  and 
lifeless  skeleton. 

But  to  come  nearer  to  our  own  time,  the  Cliurch  of  the 
present  is  also  in  this  respect  not  free  from  blame.  Even 
now  in  England,  where  for  ages  past  faith  has  struck  its 
strongest  roots  in  the  very  heart  of  the  common  people,  and 
still  retains  in  great  measure  its  hold  upon  them,  doubts  and 
sceptical  theories  are  rapidly  spreading.  Bestiug  on  the  so- 
called  “  evidences  of  Christianity,”  the  Church  of  England  in 
the  last  century  had  fallen,  as  we  all  know,  into  a  deep 
slumber.  Erom  that  slumber  she  has  indeed  long  awakened, 
but  it  is  now  to  contemplate  with  alarm  her  own  impotence 
to  withstand  assaults  from  which  the  old  “  evidences  ”  afford  no 
longer  adequate  protection.  She  finds  now  that  theological 
trainincr  has  been  too  lonq;  neuiected  in  her  meat  universities, 
and  the  vast  majority  of  her  clergy  quite  inadequately  furnished 
for  encountering  the  attacks  of  modern  criticism.  Many  will 
not  acknowledge  this  to  themselves,  while  others  of  a  nobler 
temper  rush  m  hot  haste  to  translations  from  the  German,  in 
order  to  make  themselves  au  fait  in  questions  stirred  by  the 
Colenso  and  other  “  Broad  Church  ”  controversies.  The  want 
of  experienced  leaders  through  the  thickest  labyrinths  of 
modern  criticism  is  painfully  felt ;  and  many,  in  consequence, 
are  seen  heedlessly  rushing  on  towards  the  most  dangerous 
precipices  of  critical  scepticism.  Others,  starting  back  in 
terror,  seek  in  the  communion  of  llome  a  refuge  from  * 
infidelity.  Others,  again, —  and  these  naturally  form  the 
great  majority,’ —  still  thoughtlessly  cleave  to  the  bare 
letter  of  Scripture  and  their  Church  formularies,  and  think 
to  entrench  themselves  behind  these  paper  fortifications  in 
a  vain  security  from  tlie  importations  of  German  theology 
and  critical  science.  By  such  persons  a  grossly  exaggerated 
and  thoroughly  unevangelical  view  of  the  nature  of  inspiration 
is  often  made  use  of  to  decide  off-hand  on  critical  or  scientific 
questions,  wliich  ought  to  be  discussed  on  their  own  merits, 
aud  by  no  means  interfere  with  the  foundations  of  Christian 
faith.  And  so  also,  needless  appeals  to  legal  tribunals  to 
decide  on  points  where  spiritual  and  intellectual  weapons 
ought  rather  to  be  used,  are  calculated  not  to  heal,  but  only 

B 


18  1.I0DEIIX  CULTURE  AND  CIIRlSTLiNIxy.  [r.ECT.  I. 

to  widen,  tlie  breacli  between  Science  and  Clii’Istianity.  To 
raise,  moreover,  mere  questions  of  detail  in  the  present  con¬ 
troversies  between  natural  science  and  theology  into  articles  of 
faith,  and  give  them  an  importance  whicii  is  by  no  means 
assigned  to  them  in  Holy  Scripture,  is  surely  the  very  way  to 
excite  in  many  minds  a  not  inexcusable  indignation  at  such 
attempts  at  intellectual  tyranny,  but  wdiich  is  too  apt  itself  to 
degenerate  into  total  indifference  towards  any  claims  of  divine 
revelation.  The  Church  itself,  and  her  onc-sidedness,  is  here 
chiefly  to  blame.  s/ 

Things  are  somewhat  better  in  Germany.  The  Church  here 
has  certainly  avoided  some  of  these  mistakes.  She  has  not 
set  herself  in  opposition  to  theological  and  scientific  inquiry, 
perhaps  has  rather  been  too  lax  in  duly  limiting  it.  She  has, 
on  the  whole,  followed  the  maxim  of  meeting  opponents  on 
their  own  ground,  and  withstanding  them  with  merely  scien¬ 
tific  weapons  ;  and  this  course  lias  resulted  in  a  victorious 
advance  of  evangelical  theology,  despite  the  most  formidable 
opposition,  to  a  firmer,  closer  hold  of  the  fundamental  principles 
of  the  ancient  faith.  But  here  our  commendation  stops.  The 
German  Protestant  Church  has  fallen  into  other  faults  and 
errors  not  less  injurious  than  those  of  her  English  sister.  She 
has  favoured  the  advance  of  unbelief  among  her  own  people, 
by  quietly  looking  on  when  she  ought  to  have  been  up  and 
doing.  In  the  eyes  of  many,  she  has  seemed  to  regard  her 
own  cause  as  lost.  She  has  too  long  neglected  a  duty  much 
better  attended  to  in  England, — that  of  encountering  the  scep¬ 
tical  popular  literature  of  the  day  by  popular  religious  journals, 
tracts,  and  magazines,  in  which  assaults  on  Christianity  were 
duly  met  and  answered.  It  is  only  quite  recently  that  our 
Church  has  seriously  set  herself,  by  a  revived  apologetic  litera¬ 
ture,  to  recover  the  ground  thus  lost. 

The  internal  condition  of  our  Church,  moreover,  in  the  last 
few  decades  affords  in  many  respects  a  melancholy  spectacle. 
How  do  we  see  her  torn  by  endless  strife  about  questions  con¬ 
nected  with  the  legal  rights  of  the  Prussian  Union !  How 
much  ill-blood  has  been  made  among  the  laity,  by  the  excessive 
and  quite  un-Lutheran  and  unevangelical  claims  put  forth  on 
behalf  of  the  Church  and  the  ministerial  office  !  How  much 
precious  time  wasted  by  theologians  in  useless  controversies  i 


LECT.  I.] 


CAUSES  OF  THE  BKEACII. 


19 


How  mucli  power  and  influence  has  the  Church  thereby  been 
losing  with  the  common  people  !  With  what  bitterness  do  the 
three  great  parties  into  which  we  are  now  divided  turn  the 
one  against  the  other ! — the  Extreme  Left,  on  tlie  one  hand, 
inclining  again  to  Eationalism,  and  the  extreme  Lutheran 
Eight  on  the  other,  both  equally  hostile  to  the  Evangelical 
Centre  and  its  evangelical  Church  Congress  :  those  of  the 
Left  summoning  against  it  the  Congress  of  German  Erotestants, 
and  those  of  the  Eight  the  Lutheran  Church  Congress !  Is  it 
not  enough  to  destroy  the  confidence  of  thousands  in  a  Church 
which  they  see  thus  torn  asunder  by  internal  strife  ?  And 
let  me  add  one  thing  more :  How  many  of  our  clergy  are  still 
addicted  to  the  evil  habit  of  using,  parrot-like,  a  round  of 
religious  phrases  wdiich  have  lost  for  the  most  part  their 
original  force  and  meaning ! — a  habit  than  which  nothing  is 
more  fitted  to  steel  men’s  consciences  against  reception  of  the 
truth,  and  alienate  all  persons  of  thought  and  education. 

Still  greater  is  the  hostility  now  excited  in  the  minds  of 
many  against  both  Church  and  Christianity,  by  the  position  so 
perversely  taken  by  some  of  our  friends  on  questions  of  politics. 
The  true  position  of  the  Church  with  regard  to  such  questions 
is  surely  this :  to  exhort  each  one  fearlessly  and  impartially 
to  the  performance  of  his  duties  to  God  and  man ;  to  bear 
witness  before  high  and  low  alike  on  behalf  of  truth  and  right, 
and  against  all  manner  of  wrong  and  injustice ;  and  so  to  con¬ 
stitute  herself  the  conscience,  as  it  were,  both  of  Government 
and  people,  blow  much  real  gratitude  would  the  Church 
have  earned  from  all  right-thinking  men  had  she  really  done 
this  !  But  the  contrary  has  too  often  been  the  case.  Men  of 
both  the  extreme  parties  have  in  several  instances  given  just 
offence  by  one-sided  and  partisan  action  in  politics,  while  the 
inactivity  and  seeming  indifference  of  others  has  done  hardly 
less  harm.  We  cannot  here,  of  course,  enter  into  details,  or 
presume  to  judge  in  individual  cases;  but  one  thing  we  may 
remark,  that  nothing  is  more  likely  to  alienate  popidar  confi¬ 
dence  from  the  Church  as  a  body,  than  when  its  representatives 
are  seen  to  be  wanting  in  impartiality  in  dealing  with  different 
ranks  in  the  social  system :  when  clergymen,  for  instance,  are 
found  bold  and  uncompromising  in  rebuking  the  sins  of  the 
common  people,  but  timid  or  reticent  with  the  great  and 


20 


MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  [lECT.  I. 


powerful ;  and  prepared  to  defend  or  advocate  tlirough  thick 
and  thin  the  line  assumed  by  Government,  whatever  it  may 
he.  How  often  has  it  been  remarked,  with  truth,  that  the 
feudal  party  in  Prussia  are  only  too  ready  to  identify  their 
cause  with  that  of  the  gospel,  and  to  range  their  own  party 
principles  under  the  sacred  banner  of  the  Cross !  And  have 
they  not  been  greatly  aided  in  this  confusion  of  flesh  and 
spirit  by  that  portion  of  the  clergy  who,  instead  of  maintain¬ 
ing  the  genuine  impartiality  wliich  ought  to  characterize  all 
teachers  of  truth,  suffer  themselves  to  be  degraded  into  mere 
servants  of  a  faction,  and  advocates  of  its  prejudices  ?  Chris¬ 
tianity  and  the  Christian  Church  cannot  be  incorporated  wdth 
a  single  party,  without  subjecting  itself  to  the  liability  of 
sharing  all  the  odium  and  mortifications  which  in  any  political 
conflict  that  party  may  have  to  endure.  Xor  can  we  wonder 
that,  under  existing  circumstances,  the  whole  democratic  sec¬ 
tion  should  be  animated  with  a  fanatical  hatred  to  the  Church, 
whose  cause  they  see  identified  with  that  of  the  feudal  aristo¬ 
cracy.  hiothing  has  more  powerfully  contributed,  since  1848, 
to  the  gradual  and  increasing  alienation  of  the  laity  of  the 
middle  classes  from  the  Church  and  its  interests,  than  the 
belief  that  the  clergy  have  entirely  taken  part  with  the  upper 
classes  against  the  interests  of  the  people  at  large,  and  have  no 
longer  any  heart  for  or  sympathy  with  them  in  their  endea¬ 
vours  to  obtain  redress  even  of  the  most  crying  abuses. 

The  other  extreme  party,  that  of  the  ‘‘  Protestant  ”  Congress, 
has  fallen  into  the  opposite  mistake.  Endeavouring  to  swim 
with  the  stream  of  political  Liberalism,  they  not  only  oppose 
their  brethren  of  the  Conservative  Church  party  with  the 
utmost  bitterness,  but  incur  as  much  danger  of  truckling  to 
the  powers  beneath  as  the  others  to  those  above  them.  Put¬ 
ting  in  the  foreground  the  evangelical  maxim  of  the  universal 
priesthood  of  all  Christians,  they  are  apt  to  turn  it  into  the 
maintenance  of  an  ecclesiastical  democracy,  and  an  application 
to  the  Church  of  the  theory  of  manhood  suffrage.  Proclaiming 
the  great  mass  of  the  people  just  as  it  is  to  be  truly  Christian, 
and  so,  in  fact,  to  constitute  the  Church,  they  remind  one  of 
the  old  watchword  in  the  wilderness  by  which  it  was  sought 
to  overturn  the  government  of  Moses, — “  You  make  too  much 
of  yourselves ;  the  whole  congregation  is  holy,  and  the  Lord  is 


LECT.  1.] 


CAUSES  OF  THE  BEEACII. 


21 


among  them,” — and  seem  quite  to  forget  that  it  is  not  birth 
in  a  nominally  Christian  country,  but  the  possession  of  Christ’s 
spirit,  which  constitutes  the  Christian  ;  and  finally,  by  making 
common  cause  with  the  unscrupulous  leaders  of  the  party  of 
progress,  they  give  to  their  efforts  a  sort  of  ecclesiastical 
sanction,  and  drag  down. the  Church  as  effectually  as  their 
opponents  into  the  miry  slough  of  political  party  warfare. 
The  consequence  of  this  is,  that  notwithstanding  all  their 
efforts  to  reconcile  Christianity  with  modern  culture  and  pro¬ 
gress,  inscribing  as  they  do  upon  their  banner,  “  Eenovation  of 
the  Evangelical  Church  in  unison  with  the  general  develop¬ 
ment  of  culture  in  our  time,”  this  so-called  “  Protestant  ”  party 
does  really  contribute  to  the  widening  of  the  breach  between 
such  development  and  any  positive  form  of  Christianity.  It 
works  towards  this  end  from  the  side  of  intellectual  and  social 
culture,  even  as  the  opposite  extreme  party  from  the  side  of  a 
narrow-minded  form  of  Christianity.  It  alienates  the  orthodox 
and  devout  portion  of  the  community  from  the  national  cause 
and  liberal  interests,  quite  as  surely  as  its  opponents  have 
alienated  by  their  mistakes  the  national  party  from  the  cause 
of  the  Church.  Adopting  the  tenets  of  the  old  rationalistic 
schools,  it  only  confirms  the  already  anti-religious  liberalism 
of  the  time  in  its  renunciation  of  all  positive  faith,  betraying 
more  and  more  clearly  that  the  only  reconciliation  between 
the  gospel  and  modern  culture  for  wliich  it  has  any  heart, 
would  consist  in  basing  all  the  foundations  of  faith  (so-called) 
on  the  dicta  of  that  modern  “consciousness”  which  aims  as 
much  as  possible  to  dispense  with  any  supernatural  revelation. 
The  natural  consequence  is,  that  many  religious  persons  are 
rendered  more  and  more  mistrustful  of  anything  calling  itself 
culture  or  progress,  and  more  opposed  than  ever  to  even*  the 
most  moderate  liberalism  iu  Church  or  State;  while  not  a. 
few  theologians,  who  in  many  principles  might  be  inclined  .• 
to  coalesce  with  the  members  of  the  “  Protestant  Union,”  are 
deterred  and  disgusted  by  the  excesses  of  their  democratic 
radicalism. 

Thousands  also,  it  must  be  confessed,  are  alienated  from 
the  Church  by  the  conduct  of  some  so-called  “  pietists.”  To 
say  that  such  are  mere  hypocrites  is  a  crying  injustice ;  but  it 
must  be  allow'ed  that  one-sidedness  of  judgment  and  general 


22 


MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CIIRISTIANITY.  [lECT.  L 


narrowness  of  views  does  in  many  cases  help  to  alienate  men 
of  culture  from  Christianity  thus  caricatured.  When  men  see 
how  shy  and  unfriendly  our  pietists  (unlike  so  many  good 
evangelical  Christians  in  England  and  America)  show  them¬ 
selves  towards  all  national  aspirations  and  endeavours ;  when 
they  observe  their  narrow-minded  withdrawal  from  what  they 
call  the  world  and  all  secular  interests  and  pursuits ;  when 
they  remark  that,  instead  of  being,  as  the  Lord  enjoins,  a  light 
to  the  world,  and  therefore  especially  to  their  ©wn  fellow- 
citizens,  they  prefer  to  let  their  light  shine  in  the  narrow 
bounds  of  a  conventicle  ;  when  they  hear  them  passing  ignorant 
judgments  on  matters  of  art  and  science,  or  condemning  every¬ 
thing  as  antichristian  which  does  not  wear  the  colour  of  their 
particular  section,  harping  always  on  one  string — the  sinfulness 
and  impotence  of  the  natural  man,  or  the  prophetic  announce¬ 
ments  of  the  glory  of  the  latter  day, — as  if  these  or  the  like 
were  the  whole  of  Christianity, — it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at 
that  such  narrowness  of  views  in  professed  Christians  should 
make  Christianity  itself  an  oljject  of  dislike  or  suspicion.  The 
man  of  general  cultivation  is  led  to  imagine  that  he  must  give 
up  his  clearer  insight, — the  patriot,  that  he  must  renounce  his 
political  aspirations, — if  he  would  become  what  these  people 
would  alone  recognise  as  an  orthodox  Christian  ;  and  this  he  is 
naturally  not  inclined  to  do. 

"What  has  been  already  said  will  be  enough  to  show,  that 
in  our  enumeration  of  the  causes  of  the  present  breach  be¬ 
tween  Culture  and  Christianity,  we  must  add  to  those  strictly 
ecclesiastical  and  found  within  tlie  Church  itself — ■ 

cl.  Fourthly,  Causes  Political. — Our  modern  political  de¬ 
velopment  and  aspirations  are  largely  felt  to  be  antagonistic 
to,  or  at  least  to  lie  outside,  the  sphere  of  Christianity.  And 
this  constitutes  what  has  been  truly  called  “  a  profound  internal 
discord  in  our  life  as  a  state  and  as  a  nation,” — namely,  that 
the  Christian  and  Church  element  on  the  one  hand,  the 
national  and  freedom-loving  element  on  the  other,  should  be 
so  violently  opposed,  some  regarding  Christianity  as  in  itself 
a  reactionary  principle  opposed  to  all  modern  progress,  and 
others  fearing  all  advances  towards  political  freedom  and  inde¬ 
pendence  as  necessarily  inimical  to  Christianity,  whereas  all 
history  teaclies  that  freedom  comes  and  perishes  with  religion. 


LECT.  L] 


CAUSES  OF  THE  BEEACIL 


o  ^ 
Zo 


witli  faith,  and  that  faith  can  only  grow  and  flourish  in  con- 
junction  with  liberty.  The  two  are,  in  the  long  run,  inseparable. 

“  In  many  cases,”  says  an  English  writer,  the  true  source 
of  a  man’s  irreligion  will  be  found  in  his  politics.”  With 
none  is  this  more  the  case  than  with  the  German  people. 
Whenever  the  Church  sinks  to  a  mere  engine  of  the  State,  and 
advocate  even  of  its  errors  and  abuses,  then  the  natural  result 
is,  that  the  opposition  originally  directed  against  the  State  is 
now  turned  against  the  Church  and  Christianity.  Again, 
whenever  the  Church  shows  herself  cold  and  indifferent,  or 
even  hostile  to  the  legitimate  aims  and  aspirations  of  the 
people,  then  also  it  will  soon  come  to  be  generally  regarded  as 
a  reactionary  institution,  and  political  dislike  soon  developes 
into  infidelity.  A  striking  example  of  this  is  now  exhibited 
in  the  present  relations  of  Italy  and  the  Papacy.  From  the 
very  beginning  the  latter  has  been  wont  to  confound  ecclesias¬ 
tical  and  political  interests,  ofttimes  making  morality  and 
religion  subservient  to  its  politics.  The  bitter  fruits  of  these 
unhallowed  confusions  are  now  being  reaped.  The  great 
spread  of  *infidelity  in  Italy  during  the  last  decade  is  due 
to  the  hatred  felt  for  the  anti-national  policy  of  the  Papal 
See. 

Experience  shows  that  some  systems  of  government  are 
specially  favourable  to  the  growth  of  infidelity.  Among  these 
we  may  reckon  especially  despotism  and  bureaucracy.  Church 
history  proves  clearly  that  tlie  more  freedom  is  granted  to 
Christianity,  the  more  it  developes,  the  stronger  it  grows ;  the 
more  the  State  interferes  with  its  organization,  and  endeavours 
to  direct  its  movements,  the  more  sickly  it  becomes.  It  is  not 
in  the  atmosphere  of  genuine  freedom,  but  in  the  close  and 
sultry  air  of  bureaucratic  government,  that  infidelity  will  be 
found  to  flourish  most  luxuriantly.  The  close  atmosphere  of 
red-tapist  administration  is  for  unbelief  Avdiat  a  hothouse  is  for 
a  plant.  Look  at  France  under  the  old  regime.  The  des¬ 
potism  of  Louis  XIV.  and  xv.  was  a  perfect  hotbed  of  infidelity 
and  free-thinking.  Look  at  Germany.  Nothing  like  the  old 
bureaucratic  system  to  produce  and  foster  rationalism,  which 
in  the  fresh  air  of  the  War  of  Independence  began  to  wither. 
Patriotic,  liberal,  and  religious  impulses  were  then  for  a  time 
harmoniously  united,  and  the  irresistible  force  of  that  great 


24 


MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 


[LECT.  I. 


national  movement  grew  out  of  that  union,  albeit  an  incom¬ 
plete  and  immature  one.  But  no  sooner  was  the  bureaucratic 
system  re-established  after  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  than  in¬ 
fidelity  again  raised  its  head  and  began  to  develope  fresh 
energies.  Since  then,  how  many  there  have  been  and  are  who 
have  sought  to  make  up  for  cringing  servility  to  the  meanest 
representative  of  the  State,  by  impudent  self-assertion  against 
God  and  religion !  From  that  epoch  onwards  all  political 
changes  took  a  more  and  more  unchristian  character,  till  in 
1848  the  alienation  of  the  German  j>eople  from  Christianity 
l)roke  forth  all  at  once  and  came  to  the  light  of  day.  And  to 
what  must  we  attribute  this  ?  Chiefly  to  that  reaction,  of 
which  the  secret  poison  slowly  corrupted,  the  whole  spiritual 
life-blood  of  our  people.  “  lludely  driven  back  from  tlie 
threshold  of  political  existence,  and  restricted  to  merely  literary 
efforts,”  says  a  modern  historian,  “  and  deprived  of  every  oppor¬ 
tunity  of  exercising  its  energies  in  a  public  sphere  of  action, 
the  younger  generation  has  specially  addicted  itself  to  theologi¬ 
cal  inquiries,  and  looks  for  triumphs  in  that  sphere  which  are 
denied  it  in  the  field  of  action.”  Tliis  alone  would  go  far  to 
account  for  the  spread  of  infidelity  and  rationalism  among  the 
masses  of  our  population.  The  German  Catholics  and  Friends 
of  Liji’ht  who  made  so  great  a  stir  in  the  fifth  decade  of  this 
century,  with  their  total  rejection  of  all  positive  Christianity, 
were  in  many  instances  Liberal  politicians  driven  from  their 
natural  sphere  to  wander  after  false  lights  of  fancied  liberty 
in  the  bypaths  of  rationalism. 

The  present  generation  has  likewise  been  passing  througli  a 
similar  experience.  The  conservative  reaction  which  speedily 
followed  the  revolutionary  outbreaks  of  1848  evoked  in  many 
quarters  a  spirit  of  yet  more  embittered  and  pronounced 
scepticism.  A^ogt,  Aloleschott,  Buchner,  and  others  came 
forward  as  the  advocates  of  an  impudent  antichristian  mate¬ 
rialism,  which  hitherto  had  been  unknown  in  Germany,  but 
soon  became  popular  in  the  circles  of  the  opposition.  Kor 
can  we  wonder  at  the  vehement  animosity  of  many  Liberals 
to  a  Church  which,  starting  back  from  the  precipice  before  her, 
carried  all  her  forces  into  the  camp  of  their  political  adver¬ 
saries.  Conscience  assured  them  that  their  aim  to  make  a 
strong  and  united  Germany  was  right  and  noble,  and  could  not 


LEOT.  I.] 


CAUSES  OF  THE  BEEACH. 


25 


in  itself  be  displeasing  to  God ;  Avliile  yet  many  were  misled 
by  this  conviction  to  confound  a  carnal  aversion  from  the 
truths  of  the  gospel  v/ith  zeal  for  liberal  enlightenment  and 
progress.  It  is  now  encouraging  to  note,  that  since  the  re¬ 
awakening  of  political  life,  the  popular  favour  towards  mate¬ 
rialistic  theories  seems  to  have  sensibly  diminished. 

e.  But  to  these  political  we  must  add,  Fifthly,  various  social 
and  ethical  causes  for  the  present  tendencies  to  scepticism  and 
unbelief.  Some  of  these  we  now  see  actively  at  work,  especi¬ 
ally  in  the  artisan  and  labouring  classes.  What  has  Christianity 
done — what  can  it  do  for  us  ?  are  questions  frequently  put 
among  them,  as  they  chafe  under  the  inequalities  of  our  social 
arrangements.  And  communism  stands  ready  to  give  the 
answer,  with  its  violent  disruptions  of  existing  ties  and  redis¬ 
tribution  of  land  and  property  as  the  basis  of  a  new  political 
system.  Our  German  sense  of  right  and  conscience  still  keeps 
these  principles  in  check  among  us,  but  in  many  of  our  larger 
towirs  we  find  them  already  taking  root,  as  likewise  in  Eng¬ 
land.  In  France,  as  we  all  know,  communism  prevails  in 
large  masses  of  the  population,  combined  with  the  coarsest 
antichristian  and  atheistic  materialism. 

But,  after  all,  it  is  to  moral  causes  that  w^e  must  assign  a 
main  infiuencc  in  the  present  prevalence  of  unbelief.  “  Our 
systems  of  philosophy,”  said  Fichte,  “  are  very  often  but  the 
reflex  of  our  hearts  and  lives.”  You  will,  I  am  confident, 
accept  this  axiom  as  specially  applicable  to  the  subject  now 
before  us.  Each  man’s  position  towards  Christianity  is  ulti¬ 
mately  determined  by  the  inward  condition  of  his  heart  and 
will.  The  gospel  has  from  the  first  proclaimed  that  the  only 
way  of  access  to  faith  is  by  the  path  of  practical  obedience, 
combined  with  the  ready  ear  tliat  is  ever  open  to  the  voice  of 
truth.  If  any  nran  will  do  His  will,  he  shall  know  of  the 
doctrine,. whether  it  be  of  God.”  “He  that  is  of  the  truth 
heareth  my  voice.”  Action  must  go  before  knowledge,  and  a 
certain  inward  condition  prepare  the  way  for  the  gospel 
message.  To  understand  the  truth,  we  must  first  stand  in  it, 
or  at  least  be  willing  to  enter  and  submit  to  it.* 

Wherever  there  is  a  real  alienation  from  the  gospel,  ethical 
causes  have  much  to  do  with  it.  There  is  something  humi¬ 
liating  in  the  first  aspect  of  all  Christian  truth.  It  reminds  us 


26 


MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  [lECT.  I. 


of  personal  responsibility,  of  personal  sliortcoraings.  It  wounds 
our  natural  pride  and  self-sufficiency.  And  oli,  bow  bard  it  is 
to  many  great  and  aspiring  spirits  to  come  down  from  tbeir 
bigb  estate  and  confess  to  guilt  and  error !  For  o’tbers,  Cbris- 
tianity  lias  too  mucb  that  is  alarming.  It  makes  of  buman 
life  so  serious  a  tiling ;  it  warns  so  solemnly  of  tlie  nearness  of 
eternity  and  tbe  certainty  of  future  j  udgment ;  its  sign  of  tbe 
Cross  reminds  us  so  awfully  of  tbe  divine  holiness  and  tbe 
batefulness  of  sin.  Too  many,  alas,  are  not  prepared  to  figbt 
tbeir  way  tbrougb  all  these  terrors  to  real  and  solid  peace,  and 
catch  at  tbe  idlest  doubts  and  shallowest  surmises  to  escape 
from  tbe.  pressure  of  unwelcome  truths.  What  pride  does  for 
tbe  former  class,  fear  does  for  these,  in  deterring  them  from 
embracing  tbe  faith  of  tbe  gospel.  And  as  for  both  these 
classes  tbe  entrance  of  tbe  way  of  life  is  found  too  strait,  so 
for  many  others  tbe  way  itself  has  piroved  too  narrow.  Tbeir 
love  of  ease  refuses  to  engage  in  tbe  striving  after  holiness ; 
tbeir  love  of  gain  and  worldly  honour  shrinks  from  tbe  thorny 
path  of  humility  and  self-denial.  With  many,  alas,  sins  of 
sensuality  are  either  parents  or  offspring  of  unbelief ;  nay, 
every  sin  may  be  regarded  as  a  step  in  that  direction.  Tbe 
apostolic  word  is  true  of  thousands  in  our  day,  as  on  tbe  first 
preaching  of  tbe  gospel :  “  Tbe  natural  man  receivetb  not  tbe 
things  of  tbe  Spirit  of  God.” 

Ignorance  with  many  is  a  cause  of  unbelief,  superficiality 
with  others.  Many  are  so  absorbed  in  tbe  cares  and  turmoils 
of  tbeir  earthly  life,  as  to  have  neither  tiiiie  nor  inclination  to 
inquire  into  tbe  grounds  of  Christian  faith,  and  so  fall  an  easy 
prey  to  tbe  assaults  of  tbe  shallowest  scepticism.  Mrs  non 
luibct  osorerii  nisi  igjiorantcm  is  most  true  here.  Tbe  most 
vehement  opponents  of  gospel  truth  are  ofttimes  those  who 
know  least  about  it,  and  are  not  ashamed  to  exhibit  tbe  most 
astounding  ignorance  of  both  Catechism  and  Bible.  Every 
close  observer  of  tbe  spirit  of  our  times  must  be  aware  of  its 
deep-seated  aversion  to  any  thorough  inquiry  as  to  tbe  grounds 
or  significance  of  any  religious  dogma.  It  would  be  a  marvel 
in  any  age  but*  ours  that  shallow  pretentious  books  like  Henan’s 
Vie  de  Jesus,  which  set  all  sound  criticism  and  historical 
investigation  at  defiance,  should  be  so  immensely  popular,  and 
go  through  so  many  editions.  Who  can  wonder  that  an 


LECT.  I.] 


PEESENT  EXTENT  OF  THE  BEEACII. 


27 


age  so  constituted  should  be  driven  about  by  every  ^yind  of 
doctrine^ — 

“  On  its  own  axis  turning  restlessly, 

And  never  find  the  healing  light  of  truth  ”  ? 

And  if  there  be  so  many  various  causes  of  alienation  from 
Christian  faith  in  the  prevailing  tendencies  of  our  time,  there 
are  not  a  few  which  render  the  assumption  of  a  sceptical 
temper  pleasant  and  easy.  Unbelief  appeals  mainly  to  the 
intellect,  and  lays  no  restraint  on  the  waywardness  of  the 
heart.  It  flatters  one  of  the  favourite  inclinations  of  the 
natural  man  to  embrace  and  cherish  doubt  as  to  his  own 
responsibility  to  any  spiritual  power  placed  above  him.  The 
first  note  of  interrogation  found  in  the  Bible  follows  a  doubt- 
injecting  word  of  the  demon-serpent  to  our  first  parents :  Hath 
God  said  ?  and  then  came  the  flattering  announcement  which 

O 

modern  philosophy  is  so  ready  to  repeat :  Yc  shall  he  as  gods  ; 
of  which  the  present  improved  version  runs  thus  :  Ye  are 
yourselves  God ;  that  absolute  Being  whom  ye  once  thought 
to  be  above  you  is  in  you  and  of  you — your  own  spirit.  What 
a  welcome  word  to  an  unquiet  conscience !  There  is  no  more 
eternity  or  judgment  to  come  !  How  charming  to  the  earthly 
mind  of  the  votary  of  pleasure  is  the  announcement  that  this 
world  is  everything,  and  the  future  nothing ! 

Let  us  ask  our  own  consciences  :  Have  we  not  here  in  these 
moral  causes  the  deepest  ground  of  our  present  unbelief,  the 
fullest  explanation  of  its  ready  acceptance  ?  In  divine  and 
spiritual  things,  no  one  errs  entirely  without  his  own  fault. 

A  due  consideration  of  all  these  causes,  old  and  new,  which 
have  CO  operated  in  the  production  of  our  present  forms  of 
unbelief,  will  make  intelligible  the  serious  extent  of  the  breach 
thus  made  between  modern  culture  and  Christianity.  To  this 
I  must  now  invite  your  attention. 

y 

II. - THE  FEESENT  EXTENT  OF  THIS  BEEACH. 

A  look  into  our  town  churches  shows  at  pnee  the  estrange¬ 
ment  of  the  great  majority  of  our  educated  classes  from  the 
Christian  faith.  Modern  culture  concentrates  itself  in  our 
larger  towns,  and  it  is  just  there  we  find  our  emptiest  churches, 


MODEKN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 


28 


[lect.  I. 


and,  in  comparison  with  the  growing  population,  the  fewest  of 
them.  Formerly  the  sceptic  might  say,  with  Faust, 

“  I  hear  the  doctrine, — what  I  want  is  faith 


now,  alas,  too  often  the  doctrine  itself  is  no  more  heard.  There 
are  large  parishes  in  Berlin  and  Hamburg  where,  according  to 
recent  statistics,  only  from  one  to  two  per  cent,  of  the  popula¬ 
tion  are  regular  church-goers.  Elsewhere  it  is  somewhat 
better.  But  speaking  of  Germany  in  general,  we  may  say 
that  in  our  larger  towns  the  proportion  seldom  exceeds  nine  or 
ten  per  cent.,  and  in  the  majority  of  cases  is  far  lower.  And 
yet,  in  comparison  with  the  days  in  which  rationalism  had 
possession  of  our  pulpits,  there  is,  in  the  matter  of  church 
attendance  on  the  part  of  educated  persons,  considerable  im¬ 
provement.  In  country  places  things  look  far  better.  There, 
Christianity  has  still  much  greater  hold  on  the  mass  of  the 
population.  But  of  these  we  do  not  now  speak.  Our  agricul¬ 
turists  cannot  yet  boast  of  any  high  degree  of  culture.  But 
in  the  towns,  whether  you  visit  the  lecture-rooms  of  pro¬ 
fessors,  or  the  council  chambers  of  the  municipality,  or  the 
barracks  of  the  soldier,  or  the  workshop  of  the  artisan,— every¬ 
where,  in  all  places  of  private,  or  public  social  gathering,  you 
hear  the  same  tale :  The  old  faith  is  now  obsolete ;  modern 
science  renders  all  genuine  belief  in  it  now  impossible ;  only 
ignoramuses  and  hypocrites  profess  to  adhere  to  it  any  longer. 

Still  more  is  this  the  case  among  the  educated  and  half- 
educated  classes,  i.e.  among  the  town  populations  in  Eoman 
Catholic  countries.  France,  the  greatest  of  them,  has  never 
recovered  from  her  radical  breach  with  Christianity  in  1793, 
when  bishops  and  priests  united  in  the  abjuration  of  their 
former  faith.  It  is  well  known  that  in  Upper  and  Central 
Italy  (in  Naples  the  case  is  different)  the  great  majority  of 
educated  persons  have  not  only  silently  broken  with  their 
Church,  but  openly  avow  their  unbelief.  In  Bminan  Catholic 
communities,  infidel  publications  enjoy  much  more  splendid 
triumphs  than  any  which  await  them  in  the  domains  of  Pro¬ 
testantism.  For  hundreds  who  read  Strauss  in  Germany,  tens 
of  thousands  in  France  and  Italy  have  been  seen  devouring 
Penan.  In  Spain  and  Portugal  the  breach  is  not  yet  made  so 
openly ;  but  signs  are  not  wanting  that  the  hearts  of  a  large 


LECT.  I.] 


PKESENT  EXTENT  OF  THE  BREACH. 


29 


number  of  the  cultivated  classes  are  alienated  from  their  pro¬ 
fessed  faith ;  that  the  hatred  to  the  priests  in  many  quarters 
is  intense,  especially  since  the  last  revolution ;  and  that  the 
religion  of  very  many  is  limited  to  an  occasional  appearance 
in  some  processions.  Even  in  Catholic  Belgium  there  are 
many  indications  of  a  strong  reaction  against  the  Church, 
initiated  by  such  societies  as  those  of  the  Affranclies,  the  Soli- 
daires,  and  the  Litres- Penseurs.  The  members  of  the  last- 
named  society  hind  themselves  to  resist  to  the  utmost  all 
interference  of  the  priesthood  in  the  affairs  of  social  and 
family  life,  and  therefore  (1)  not  to  permit  the  visit  of  a  priest 
in  case  of  death,  or  his  officiating  at  a  funeral;  (2)  to  take 
part  in  none  hut  civil  marriages ;  and,  (3)  not  to  allow  their 
children  to  he  baptized,  or  go  to  first  communion,  or  be  con¬ 
firmed.  And  tendencies  of  the  same  kind  are  manifesting 
themselves  even  in  such  thoroughly  Eomanized  communities 
as  the  Spanish  Eepublics  of  South  America.  Who,  then,  will 
deny  that  in  Eoman  Catholic  countries  the  breach  between 
Culture  and  Christianity  is  already  a  very  wide  one  ?  And  it 
ia  one  that  is  increasing  every  day. 

But  alas,  all  the  factors  of  our  modern  intellectual  life  are 
largely  influenced  by  a  prevailing  spirit  of  unbelief!  Take 
first  our  universities  and  schools.  Whereas  amongst  our 
theologians  the  old  spirit  of  rationalism  is  in  great  measure 
overcome,  it  is  quite  otherwise  among  the  teachers  in  our 
upper  schools,  and  especially  our  mathematicians,  whose  train¬ 
ing  in  the  exact  sciences  disposes  them  to  demand  a  proof  for 
everything,  to  be  strongly  prejudiced  in  favour  of  “  rational 
religion,”  to  be  too  ready  to  forgiet  how  many  incommensurable 
magnitudes  exist  in  the  moral  world,  and  to  seek  for  clearness 
of  ideas  at  the  expense  of  truth  and  life  (Bengel).  And  so, 
also,  the  semi-cultured  teachers  in  our  popular  schools  are 
even  more  prone  to  succumb  to  the  temptation  of  thinking 
themselves  too  enlightened  and  advanced  to  share  the  simple 
faith  of  the  common  people,  or  submit  to  its  restraints.  Hence 
the  general  outcry  for  the  emancipation  of  the  school  from  the 
control  of  the  Church,  the  endeavour  to  abridge  as  much  as 
possible  the  time  given  to  religious  instruction,  and  to  banish 
it  from  the  central  position  which  it  has  hitherto  occupied  in 
popular  education ;  while  in  many  places,  notwithstanding 


30 


MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  [LECT.  I, 


such  frequent  failures,  the  attempt  is  again  and  again  renewed 
to  establish  undenominational  schools,  in  which  Catholics  and 
Protestants  may  be  educated  together. 

In  our  gymnasia  and  other  grammar  schools,  religious  in¬ 
struction  is,  with  some  praiseworthy  exceptions,  relegated  to 
a  very  inferior  position.  Boys  and  youths  are  often  found  to 
possess  a  remarkably  good  acquaintance  with  the  details  of 
other  subjects,  whose  knowledge  of  Scripture  history  and 
Christian  doctrine  is  of  the  most  meagre  description.  ISTot 
long  ago,  it  was  discovered  in  a  Prussian  gymnasium  that  a 
secret  society  existed  among  the  boys  of  from  thirteen  to 
fifteen  years  of  age,  with  rules  of  a  purely  atheistic  character, 
the  first  paragraph  commencing  with,  “  Any  one  believing  in 
a  God  is  thereby  excluded  from  this  society.” 

Such  bein<T  the  condition  of  our  tirammar  schools,  who  can 
wonder  that  at  the  university  feAV  students  but  those  reading 
theology  should  go  to  Churcb,  while  many  lecturers  allow 
themselves  to  hold  such  language  on  the  subject  as  to  lead 
their  youthful  audience  to  regard  attendance  on  public  worship 
as  something  quite  beneath  their  dignity  ?  The  natural  conse¬ 
quence  is,  that  the  large  class  of  Government  officials  are  for 
the  most  part  indifferent,  and  in  many  cases  even  hostile,  to 
Christianit3q  and  that  the  mutual  estrangement  between  Church 
and  State  increases  every  day. 

A  further  glance  at  our  modern  literature  will  exhibit  the 
almost  abysmal  profundity  of  the  chasm  which  in  this  respect 
divides  our  present  culture  from  our  Christianity.  ISTot  many 
years  ago,  German  infidelity  was  contented  to  appear  in  the 
courtly  guise  and  with  the  aristocratic  exclusiveness  of  science 
and  philosoph}’" ;  she  now  endeavours  to  clothe  herself  in  forms 
in  which  every  one  may  give  her  welcome.  Unbelief  is  no 
longer  a  guarded  secret  among  wits  and  scholars,  or  uttered  in 
a  language  “  not  understanded  of  the  people it  is  now  com¬ 
mended  in  innumerable  publications,  tracts,  novels,  illustrated 
newspapers,  to  the  attention  of  the  working  classes,  and  even 
of  the  peasantry. 

The  tendency  to  popularize  all  results  of  scientific  investiga¬ 
tion,  which  is  so  marked  a  feature  of  our  time,  is  seen  specially 
at  work  in  this  department,  widening  more  and  more  the 
breach  between  inodern  popular  thought  and  Christianity.  A 


LECT.  I.] 


PEE3ENT  EXTENT  OF  THE  BREACH. 


31 


few  decades  "back,  the  study  of  German  philosophy  required 
very  severe  application.  Few  then  even  read  Hegel,  and  still 
fewer  understood  him.  But  the  atheistic  consequences  drawn 
by"  Feuerbach  and  others  from  his  speculations  are  found  by 
many  very  piquant  and  agreeable  reading  now.  Such  philo¬ 
sophy  every  carpenter’s  apprentice  can  too  readily  understand. 
And  so  with  Strauss.  What  thirty  years  ago  he  addressed  to 
theologians,  is  now  hashed  up  again  and  fitted  to  the  palates  of 
“  the  G  ermaii  people.”  Every  writer  now  wishes  to  be  popular. 
The  old  deductions  of  Hegelian  philosoph}^  paraded  by  Feuer¬ 
bach  and  his  compeers,  that  God  is  nothing  more  than  one’s 
own  inward  being  made  the  object  of  self-contemplation,  that 
prayer  and  adoration  are  in  reality  but  forms  of  self-worship, 
— “signs,”  to  use  Emerson’s  language,  “of  infirmity  of  will;” 
these  are  now  thrown  broadcast  by  the  labours  of  a  hundred 
pens  over  the  whole  field  of  the  popular  mind ;  religion  is  to 
be  no  longer  a  seeking  after  God,  but  a  resting  on  nature’s 
bosom ;  no  longer  an  obedience  to  a  higher  will,  but  the  carry¬ 
ing  out  of  one’s  own  self-discovered  system  of  morality.  And 
hence,  besides  the  general  disbelief  in  the  supernatural  and 
miraculous  characteristic  of  the  popular  mind  in  the  present 
day,  the  multitude  of  empty  unmeaning  phrases  which  one 
hears  in  every  social  circle  expressive  of  philosophical  notions 
and  deductions  half  understood,  c.g.  “  the  worship  of  genius,” 
“  religion  of  humanity,”  “  moral  order  of  the  universe,”  “  pro¬ 
gress  of  the  human  race,”  etc.  etc.,  while  the  use  of  any  scrip¬ 
tural  ifiirase  or  expression  is  regarded  as  a  sign  of  narrow¬ 
mindedness  or  bad  taste. 

The  same  rationalistic,  pantheistic,  and  materialistic  influ¬ 
ences  pervade  our  modern  oesthetic  literature.  Many  of  our 
would-be  fine  writers  have  come  to  regard  Christianity  as  a 
direct  hindrance  to  true  Culture.  So,  for  instance,  Arnold 
Huge,  who  will  no  longer  call  it  by  its  name,  but  speaks  of  it 
as  “  Asiatismus”  or  Judaism  :  “  This  '  Asiatismus  ’  lies  like  a 
dpad  weight  on  all  the  departments  of  modern  life,  and  holds 
us  in  the  bondage  of  a  refined  (or  unrefined)  barbarism.”  Even 
Voltaire,  Lessing,  Gothe,  Schiller,  Kant,  Fichte,  and  Hegel, 
with  all  their  liberality,  were  unable  to  free  themselves  en¬ 
tirely  from  the  yoke.  And  for  such  ludicrous  outburst.s  of 
fanatical  infidelity  he  is  praised  in  a  modern  journal  (the 


32  MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  [lECT.  L 

Gartenlaiibe)  as  tlie  ideal  of  a  true  German  !  Another  sings  the 
triumphs  of  natural  science  in  such  strains  as  these:  “  Brahma, 
Buddha,  Jupiter,  and  Jehovah  must  now  yield  to  Avorthier  suc¬ 
cessors  in  reason  and  philanthropy.”  ^  A  third,  having  weighed 
both  Catholicism  and  Protestantism  in  the  balances,  and  found 
them  wanting,  proceeds  to  instal  the  modern  drama  as  tlie 
best  teacher  of  true  religion  •:  “  A  great  lie  pervades  the  whole 
of  modern  society.  Priests  and  laymen  alike  are  liars  against 
their  Avill,  and  often  Avithout  knowing  it.  When  Ave  let  our 
children  learn  the  Catechism  Avithout  bblieving  it  ourselves, 
are  Ave  not  making  ourselves  liars  ?  AVhat  Ave  AAvant  is  a  new 
Church.  I  am  for  a  free  stage.  The  theatre  is  my  temple, 
Avhere  I  Avould  see  inaugurated  a  neAV  form  of  worship.  The 
theatre  should  be  regarded  as  a  house  of  God,  as  it  Avas  among 
the  ancient  Greeks.  Eeligion  and  the  drama  I  Avould  fain  see 
identified.”  (Eckardt.) 

To  these  signs  of  a  literary  and  assthetical  alienation  from 
Christianity  Ave  must  add  those  of  a  more  directly  political 
character.  Our  daily  press  in  far  the  largest  number  of  in¬ 
stances  takes  up  a  perfectly  indifferent,  if  not  openly  hostile, 
position.  Witness  the  unmeasured  scorn  poured  by  a  hundred 
of  its  organs  on  the  efforts  to  promote  home  and  foreign 
missions,  and  even  on  charitable  associations  if  Avorked  in  a 
Christian  spirit ;  and  so  likeAvise  our  political  clubs  and 
unions,  nay,  even  those  of  a  merely  social  character, — singing, 
rifle-shooting,  athletic  clubs,  and  trades-unions,  such  as  that  of 
the  shaAvl  Aveavers  in  Berlin, — often  go  out  of  their  Avay  to 
parade  religious  indifference  and  unbelief ;  and  is  it  not  in  the 
memory  of  many  of  us  how  the  great  popular  moA^ements,  some 
twenty  years  ago,  for  the  ]3olitical  regeneration  of  our  country 
Avere  conducted  in  the  spirit  of  the  motto  of  the  last  named 
association : 

“  Consider,  man.  Row  great  tRoii  art — 

Tliy  will  is  tliy  Redeemer  ;  ” 

how  the  proposal  to  implore  the  divine  blessing  and  assistanee 
on  the  deliberations  of  the  Frankfort  Parliament  Avas  received 
Avith  shouts  of  derisive  laughter;  and  hoAV  in  so  many  educa¬ 
tionist  meetings  in  later  years  the  watcliAvord  most  in  favour 

'  Compare  AVicRern,  Die  VerjtJlichtung  der  Kirche  zum  Kampf  gegen  die 
Wklermcher  des  Glauhens,  p.  7  sq. 


LECT.  I.] 


PEESENT  EXTENT  OF  THE  BEEACII. 


lias  been :  The  undenominational  Christianity  of  humani- 
tarianism  must  henceforth  be  the  religion  of  Germany  ”  ?  Are 
not  all  these  signs  of  the  times,  which  exhibit  the  breach 
between  our  present  Culture  and  true  Christianity  as  most 
deplorably  deep  and  wide  ? 

It  may  then,  I  fear,  be  affirmed  with  truth,  that  the  great 
mass  of  our  educated,  and  yet  more  of  our  half-educated, 
classes  in  this  our  German  Fatherland  is  alienated  from  all 
positive  definite  Christianity  :  our  diplomatists  .almost  without 
exception,  and  the  great  majority  of  our  officers  in  the  army, 
our  Government  officials,  lawyers,  doctors,  teachers  of  all  kinds 
but  professed  theologians,  artists,  manufacturers,  merchants, 
shopkeepers,  and  artisans,  stand  on  the  basis  of  a  merely 
rationalistic  and  nominal  Christianity ;  while  the  lower  middle 
class  (always  excepting  the  agriculturists  and  peasantry),  carried 
away  by  the  materialistic  tendencies  of  the  time,  assume  a  more 
or  less  hostile  position  towards  it. 

But  is  not  the  condition  of  some  other  countries  better 
than  ours  in  this  respect  ?  It  is  so  in  England  and  America. 
There  the  mass  of  the  people,  especially  the  middle  classes, 
still  rest  their  faith  on  the  old  foundations ;  and  England 
more  especially  still  recognises  wuth  practical  gratitude  the 
inestimable  blessings  for  which  she  is  indebted  to  the  gospel. 
But  alas !  the  following  statements  are  enough  to  show  that 
even  there  the  breach  is  of  lamentable  extent.  It  has  been 
calculated  that  in  the  year  1851  more  than  12,000,000  copies 
of  infidel  publications  of  various  kinds  issued  from  the  London 
press, — 640,000  purely  atheistic,  small  pamphlets  included, 
but  without  reckoning  newspapers.  These  publications  have 
an  immense  circulation  among  the  working  classes.  To  these 
must  be  added  the  enormous  mass  of  immoral  publications 
issued,  according  to  a  previous  statement  in  the  Ediiiburgh 
Eevieiv,  at  the  rate  of  29,000,000  copies  a  year, — making  a 
larger  aggregate  than  all  the  publications  of  the  Bible,  Tract, 
and  many  other  religious  societies  put  together.  (Comp.  Tlte 
Power  of  the  Press,  published  1847,  and  Pearson’s  prize  essay, 
On  InJidelitij ,  published  in  1863.)  The  perusal  of  these 
works,  and  of  the  wretched  penny  papers  dispersed  in  hundreds 
of  thousands,  must  powerfully  contribute  to  spread  infidelity 
and  immorality  among  the  masses  of  the  population.  Turning 


34 


MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  [lECT.  I. 


to  the  upper  classes,  it  must  be  noticed  that  the  ardent  pur¬ 
suit  of  natural  science  has  led  many  distinguished  men  to 
views  widely  different  from  those  commonly  received  on  tlie 
inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture,  or  leading  to  the  total  rejection 
of  its  authority,  and  that  these  have  been  combated  with  con¬ 
siderable  abilit]^.  The  controversy  is  still  proceeding. 

“  Secularism  ”  so  called, — the  doctrine  that  the  present  life 
and  world  is  everything,  that  men  have  only  to  lire  and  care 
for  what  they  see  around  them  or  in  the  immediate  future, — 
a  doctrine  founded  on  the  positivism  of  Auguste  Comte, — has 
great  attractions  for  the  practical  and  somewhat  materialistic 
English  mind.  Its  apostle  in  England  was  Holyoake.  If  he 
has  already  of  professed  disciples  not  a  few,  the  practical 
adherents  of  his  system  are  everywhere  multitudinous. 

It  is  also  well  known  that  assaults  more  or  less  covert  have 
been  made  on  faith  in  England  by  professed  theologians,  nay, 
even  by  some  who  hold  high  places  in  the  National  Church. 
When  we  remember  the  eagerness  with  which  the  Essays  and 
Revieios,  and  Bisliop  Colenso’s  attacks  on  the  rcntateuch,  were 
sought  for  and  read  by  all  classes  of  the  English-speaking  race, 
and  even  in  its  remotest  colonies,  we  cannot  but  be  sensible 
that  the  breach  between  culture  and  Christianity  is  for  them 
likewise  beginning  seriously  to  widen. 

So  great  and  universal  is  the  chasm  which  more  or  less  in 
all  countries  of  the  civilised  world  is  now  dividing  the  spirit 
of  the  age  and  its  most  characteristic  p)roducts  from  the  faith, 
aspirations,  and  convictions  of  the  Christian  Church.  That 
chasm  is  wider  than  most  of  us  would  willingly  allow.  Per¬ 
haps  some  of  the  statements,  necessarily  brief  and  superficial, 
which  I  have  laid  before  you,  may  have  astonished  some  of  my 
most  intelligent  hearers.  But  being  so,  the  dut}^  is  the  more 
incumbent  on  us  seriously  to  put  the  question.  Is  a  reconcilia¬ 
tion  still  possible  ?  We  must  devote  a  somewhat  careful 
investigation  to  our  reply. 


III. - CAN  THIS  BREACH  BE  FILLED  UP  ? 

If  we  are  inclined  to  answer  this  question  in  the  affirma¬ 
tive,  we  shall  be  very  far  from  denying  that  between  modern 


LECT.  I.] 


CAN  THE  BREACH  BE  FILLED  UP  ? 


85 


culture  and  Christianity  there  exist,  in  many  respects,  irre¬ 
concilable  internal  contradictions,  and  that  it  is  no  use  for  us 
to  attempt  to  reconcile  them.  But  there  is  another  question  : 
iv'hether  true  culture  and  genuine  Christianity  mutually  ex¬ 
clude  one  another  ;  or  whether,  on  the  contra.ry,  the  latter  does 
not  naturally  produce,  or  at  any  rate  promote,  the  former ;  and 
whether  the  present  time  and  our  own  countrymen  are  not 
peculiarly  fitted  to  illustrate  the  real  inward  connection  be¬ 
tween  the  two,  and  so  called  upon  to  do  their  best  in  filling  up 
this  breach  ?  In  what  follows,  we  desire  to  make  an  attempt 
to  maintain  this  latter  proposition. 

However  painful  it  may  be  to  contemplate  the  assault 
which  at  the  present  day  is  made  by  innumerable  adversaries 
with  increasing  bitterness  on  the  structure  of  Christian  faith, 
it  nevertheless  has,  in  some  respects,  a  favourable  aspect.  If 
Christianity  is  that  which  from  the  very  beginning  it  has 
professed  to  be,  that  is,  absolute  truth,  which  must  prevail  in 
the  end,  all  these  attacks  upon  it  can  only  assist  in  advancing 
its  ultimate  victory,  because  they  contribute  to  a  deeper 
investigation  of  truth,  and  to  a  constant  exhibition  of  fresh 
aspects  of  it.  If  it  is  true,  as  Christians  believe,  that  all 
things,  even  the  attacks  of  their  enemies,  take  place  under 
some  higher  guidance,  then  these  attacks  are  never  merely 
detrimental  to  Cliristianity,  but  from  another  point  of  Anew 
tend  to  further  it.  The  open,  honourable  antagonism  of  an 
opponent,  to  say  nothing  of  the  victory  over  an  error,  always 
tends  to  intensify  and  enrich  the  treasure  of  truth  possessed 
by  the  Church.  The  louder,  therefore,  the  opposition  of  the 
present  day,  and  the  warmer  the  contest  on  all  sides,  the 
greater,  after  all,  is  the  gain  to  be  derived  therefrom,  and  the 
nearer  becomes  the  final,  complete,  and  permanent  victory. 
Nay,  the  numerous  attacks  made  on  Christian  belief  are  even 
now  a  proof  that  Christianity  is  again  beginning  to  become 
an  impoi'tant  power  in  the  life  of  nations.  From  all  antiquity 
downwards,  history  tells  us  that  the  more  powerful  the  de¬ 
velopment  of  Christianity,  the  stronger  became  the  opposition 
to  it.  Unquestionably,  at  the  present  day,  the  opposition  is 
great,  and  consequently  Christianity  must  again  have  presented 
itself  in  a  powerful  form.  Where  there  is  much  conflict, 
there  is  also  much  life.  And  perhaps  the  present  time  is  just 


t 


36 


MODERN  Culture  and  Christianity.  [lect,  l 


the  very  period  when  there  is  the  least  ground  for  despairing 
of  the  victory  of  the  genuine  Christian  theory  of  the  universe. 
If  we  survey  the  manifold  bridges  w’hich  are  now  being  con¬ 
structed,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  return  of  educated  persons 
to  Christian  belief,  and  the  increasing  numbers  of  those  who 
are  beginning  to  find  out  this  way  of  return,  we  are  bound  to 
say  that,  in  the  case  of  any  one  who  examines  the  matter 
without  prejudice,  it  is  more  easy  now  than  in  many  previous 
periods  to  bring  himself  to  a  thorough  reconciliation  between 
culture  and  Christianity.  Let  us  now  more  closely  look  into 
the  main  path  to  this  end. 

Who,  then,  are  the  chief  exponents  of  modern  culture  ? 
Are  they  not  the  Christian  nations,  and  very  especially  those 
among  whom  the  Holy  Scriptures  have  free  course,  that  is, 
Protestant  nations  ?  Is  this  fact  to  be  taken  as  a  mere  accident  ? 
Does  it  not  point  to  some  internal  connection  between  culture 
and  Christianity  ?  When,  in  the  case  of  all  other  nations,  we 
see  civilisation,  after  fiourishing  for  a  brief  period,  decline 
and  fall  into  complete  decay,  whilst  in  the  case  of  Christian 
nations  we  see  it,  although  amid  interruptions,  constantly  in¬ 
creasing,  is  not  the  supposition  a  very  obvious  one,  that  just 
in  their  Christianity,  and  especially  in  the  gospel,  nations  pos¬ 
sess  an  inexhaustible  source  of  culture,  and  a  constant  impulse 
and  stimulus  to  progress  ?  Hay,  may  we  not  entertain  the- 
supposition  that,  after  all,  Christianity  and  culture  are  so  inti¬ 
mately  connected,  that  they  must  increase  or  decay,  stand  or 
fall,  together  ?  This  leads  us  to  the  perception  that  Chris¬ 
tianity  is  the  source  and  exponent  of  all  true  culture.  And  on 
this  perception  is  based  the  possibility  of  putting  an  end  to  the 
dissension  between  modern  culture  and  Christian  belief,  and  of 
reconciling  the  two.  This  proposition  may  be  proved  to  be  in 
consonance  both  with  reason  and  history.  Allow  me  to  state 
a  few  points  with  regard  to  both  these  sides  of  the  question. 

'What,  then,  is  the  true  idea,  the  pecidiar  nature,  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  and  what  is  the  true  idea  of  culture  ?  On  this  point 
I  must  forthwith  come  into  contact  with  many  errors,  some 
perhaps  prevailing  even  among  ourselves. 

It  is  of  the  essence  of  Christianity  not  to  be  a  mere  com¬ 
plex  of  new  doctrines ;  it  is  not,  for  instance,  as  Lessing  as¬ 
serted,  “  a  practical  teaching  of  personal  immortality ;  ”  it  began 


LECT.  I.]  CAN  THE  BREACH  BE  FILLED  U?  ?  S  7 

with  facts,  and  its  doctrines  are  only  to  be  comprehended  in 
connection  with  them.  Immediately  after  its  first  word, 
“Eepent!”  attention  is  directed  to  a  divine  fact,  “For  the 
kingxlom  of  heaven  is  at  hand,”  which  is  rather  a  subject  of 
spiritual  than  of  intellectual  apprehension.  Christ  therefore 
represents  Flimself  to  us  in  the  gospel,  not  as  a  mere  teacher, 
hut  rather  as  salvation  and  life  made  manifest ;  not  as  one 
who  merely  enunciates  truths,  but  is  Himself  the  truth.  *“I 
am  the  Truth  and  the  Life.” 

Christianity  is  not,  moreover,  as  Kant  would  have  it,  “  the 
religion  of  a  good  life.”  To  this  many  wise  men  have  attained 
long  before  Christ  preached,  although  not  in  so  perfect  a 
form.  It  is  not  a  sum-total  of  moral  precepts,  as  rationalists 
both  of  older  and  more  recent  times  suppose,  who  assume  that 
the  main  points  in  Christian  faith  are  the  general  ideas  of 
reverence  for  the  Divine,  honesty,  charity,  virtue,  etc.  etc. 
These  ideas  and  moral  precepts  did  not  specifically  constitute 
the  new  message  which  was  delivered  by  Christ  and  the 
apostles :  they  were  of  course  placed  by  Christianity  in  a  new 
light,  deepened,  intensified,  and  widened  ;  but  they  all  had  a 
previous  existence,  more  especially  in  the  Old  Testament. 
(Compare  the  command  of  perfect  love  to  God  and  our  neigh¬ 
bour,  Deut.  vi.  5,  Lev.  xix.  2  and  18;  and  of  love  to  our 
enemies.  Ex.  xxiii.  4,  5,  et  al) 

Let  us  cast  a  glance  at  the  writings  of  the  apostles.  Do 
they  put  forward  certain  moral  rules  of  life  as  the  essence  of 
their  new  doctrine  ?  Ko ;  their  exhortations  to  holiness,  love, 
etc.,  appear  everywhere  as  accessory  to  the  chief  matter  which 
had  been  previously  set  forth,  the  yosi^cl  of  Jesus  Christ — Llis 
death.  His  resurrection,  and  the  great  salvation  obtained 
through  Him,  and  now  proffered  to  the  world.  In  the  first 
place,  they  always  preach  and  pray  for  grace  and  peace  vuth 
God  through  Jesus  Christ ;  and  all  the  special  exhortations  and 
ju’ecepts  that  are  subsequently  added,  are  required  by  them 
to  be  fulfilled  only  as  a  consequence  which  at  once  results 
from  this  new  revelation,  and  from  the  new  relation  of  man  to 
God  which  is  thereby  constituted ;  that  is,  they  require  these 
things  as  a  fruit  which  is  to  grow  out  of  the  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ.  Even  John,  the  preacher  of  love,  to  whom  some  are 
very  fond  of  appealing,  sets  forth,  as  the  essential  and  new 


33  MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  [lECT.  L 

matter  in  liis  teacliing,  certainly  not  moral  maxims,  but  that 
“the  Life  teas  manifested" — tlie  Word  wliicli  was  from  the 
beginning ;  “  and  we,”  he  goes  on  to  say,  “  have  seen  it,  and 
bear  witness,  and  show  it  unto  you.”  He  also,  and  he  particu¬ 
larly,  announces  his  message,  not  as  a  mere  aggregate  of  truths 
and  moral  rules,  but  as  a  vital  power,  and  as  the  revelation  of 
a.  divinely  established  matter  of  history.  And  to  what  end  ? 
Is  il  merely  in  order  that  our  moral  conduct  should  be  im¬ 
proved  ?  No  ;  something  far  more  is  intended.  “  That  ye 
also  may  have  fellowship  with  the  Father,  and  His  Son  Jesus 
Christ”  (1  John  i.  3).  Christianity  has  in  view  not  merely 
to  make  man  righteous,  but  also  to  reconcile  and  unite  him  ivith 
God,  in  the  way  opened  out  by  the  new  revelation  of  Himself 
in  Chnst — “the  Life  made  manifest.”  Unless  the  writings  of 
the  apostles  are  distorted  to  the  very  uttermost,  taking  as  last 
that  which  is  first,  and  as  first  that  which  is  last,  it  is  simply 
impossible  to  maintain  that  they  set  forth  certain  moral  pre¬ 
cepts  as  the  essentials  in  their  teaching. 

But  in  favour  of  this  view,  may  we  not  also  appeal  to  the 
original  teaching  of  Christ  Himself?  This  is  done,  for  in- 
stance  by  Baur,  when,  in  allusion  to  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
the  parables,  etc.,  he  says,  “  The  essence  of  Christianity  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  conditions  requisite 
for  a  participation  in  this,  so  as  to  place  man  in  a  genuine 
moral  relation  to  God  also  that  tlie  specific  pre-eminence  of 
Christianity  over  other  religions  is  “  its  universally  human  and 
comprehensive  nature, — the  purely  etliical  character  of  its 
facts  and  doctrines.”  We  have  here,  as  a  result  from  the  same 
grounds,  something  too  indefinite  and  one-sided.  Christianity 
is  concerned,  not  merely  in  bringing  about  a  “genuine  moral 
relation  of  man  to  God,”  but  in  effecting  a  new  relation  through 
a  distinct  person, — that  is,  Christ.  Those  discourses  of  Jesus 
formed  only  the  starting-point  of  His  teaching,  the  general 
ground-plan  as  it  were,  with  which  He  sought,  in  the  first 
place,  to  lay  hold  of  the  consciences  of  His  hearers.  But 
from  this  point  He  proceeds  to  further  developments,  gra¬ 
dually  unveiling  the  significance  of  His  own  personality  in 
reference  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  His  own  position  as  the 
central  point  in  the  economy  of  salvation  (for  instance,  that 
He  gave  His  life  as  a  ransom  for  many,”  etc. ;  cf.  Matt.  xx. 


LECT.  E] 


CAX  THE  BEEACII  BE  FILLED  UP  ? 


39 


28,  and  our  Lord’s  discourses  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John).  It 
is  therefore  a  perverse  proceeding  to  confine  attention  to  the 
mere  starting-point ;  Baur  himself  being  subsequently  driven 
to  confess  that,  after  all,  it  is  “  the  personality  of  its  Founder  on 
which  depends  the  whole  importance  of  Christianity  in  the 
history  of  the  world.” 

We  therefore  arrive  at  the  conclusion,  that  the  essential  in 
Christianity  is  objectively  Christ  Himself,  and  the  redeeming 
work  which  has  its  source  in  His  Person  ;  subjectively,  faith 
in  Him  as  redemption  manifested, — that  is,  the  experience 
of  this  redeeming  work  in  one’s  own  heart.  The  object  of 
Christianity  is  to  lead  men  back  to  God  and  to  their  true 
destination,  on  the  basis  of  the  redemption  and  atonement 
which  has  taken  place  through  Christ.  This  is  the  specific 
novelty  in  the  teaching  of  Christ  and  the  apostles.  In  every 
religion,  man  seeks  in  some  way  or  other  to  draw  nigh  to  God, 
to  become  well-pleasing  to  God,  or  to  propitiate  Him.  But 
tiie  means  employed  for  this  end  are  very  various.  In  heathen 
religions,  indeed  in  all  religions  not  genuinely  Christian,  these 
means  are  some  personal  performances  on  the  part  of  men, — 
sacrifices,  penances,  good  w^orks,  and  the  like ;  or  also,  as 
rationalism  and  modern  enlightenment  maintain,  moral  prin¬ 
ciples  and  righteous  living.  Christianity  stands  out  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  all  this :  it  denies  that  the  goodwill  of  the  holy  God, 
whose  desire  is  to  see  His  children  not  merely  outwardly 
righteous,  but  perfect  as  He  is  perfect  (Matt.  v.  48),  can  be 
attained  by  man  without  grace,  or  that  the  honour  which  men 
should  have  before  God,  and  the  righteousness  which  is  of  avail 
in  God’s  sight,  can  be  attained  to  by  man  without  fellowship  with 
Him  who  is  alone  perfectly  righteous, — that  is,  with  Christ. 
And  it  is  therefore  declared,  that  there  is  only  one  way  which 
leads  to  the  desired  end,  and  that  this  way  is  Christ.  “  I  am 
the  way.”  The  proper  essence,  therefore,  of  Christianity  is  the 
bringing  back  men  to  God,  and  their  reunion  with  Him,  by 
the  one  only  way  which  is  called,  and  is,  Christ. 

In  respect  to  no  idea  is  it  more  necessary  to  distinguish 
between  the  true  and  the  false ;  no  word  is  so  mischievously 
misunderstood  and  misapplied,  as  this  high-sounding  watchword 
of  our  time — culture.  Indeed,  our  century,  before  all  others, 
seems  to  aspire  to  be  the  age  of  “  culture.”  Nothing  in  the 


40 


MODEEN  CULTUEE  AND  CIIELSTIANITY.  [LECT.  L 


present  day  is  so  derogatory  as  to  be  considered  “  nnedncated 
so  that  not  a  few  even  of  our  shoeblacks  consider  themselves 
“  educated.”  How  many  are  there,  hoAvever,  in  our  time,  who 
are  conscious  of  the  points  on  which  true  culture  really 
depends  ?  Is  it  not  a  matter  of  fact,  that  a  certain  superficial 
refinement  of  manners,  some  acquaintance  with  the  forms  of 
good  society,  a  little  stock  of  ordinary  phrases,  and  the  fact  of 
having  seen  or  heard  something  of  the  best  known  products  of 
literature,  together  with  a  fashionable  style  of  dress,  form,  in  the 
opinion  of  most  persons,  a  sufficient  claim  to  the  possession  of 
“  culture  ”  ?  But  is  that  enough  ?  Is  it  not  then  possible 
that  a  man,  sunk  in  the  lowest  depths  of  moral  rudeness  and 
degradation,  may  appropriate  some  of  this  outward  varnish  of 
“culture,”  with  very  little  reformation  of  his  essential  barbarism? 
Can  we  then,  on  this  account,  consider  him  as  a  really  cultured 
man  ?  We  feel  at  once  that  true  cultivation  consists  in  real 
refinement  of  mind  and  spirit,  and  not  in  mere  intellectual 
acquirements  or  outward  accomplishments. 

According  to  the  sense  of  the  word  “  Bildung"  (culture),  we 
call  a  thing  “ gebildd"  (formed)  wdien  it  is  perfectly  shaped, 
ready,  and  complete ;  when  it  is  that  which  it  is  intended  to 
be,  and  consequently  completely  fitted  for  its  purpose.  So, 
also,  the  truly  formed  or  cultured  man  is  he  in  whom  all 
natural  faculties  are  thoroughly  developed,  so  as  to  enable  him 
to  fulfil  the  purpose  for  which  he  was  created.  The  next 
question  w’-ould  therefore  be,  what  this  jmrpose  is;  and  what 
the  nature,  extent,  and  destination  of  the  faculties  implanted  in 
each  individual,  and  what  the  end  he  has  to  aim  at  reaching. 
It  is  clear  that,  just  as  any  one  places  a  higher  or  lower  esti¬ 
mate  on  this  task, — that  is,  on  the  whole  end  and  piirpose  of 
human  life, — his  ideas  of  culture  must  take  either  a  higher  or 
a  lower  form.  But,  in  truth,  what  is  this  end  and  purpose  ? 
Hothing  less  than  God  Himself.  God  is  the  eternal  prototype, 
in  harmony  wuth  which  man  is  to  form  hinrself ;  and  likeness 
to  God  is  the  aim  for  which  he  is  to  strive,  by  perfectly  culti¬ 
vating  and  shaping  all  the  powers  implanted  in  him.  His 
divine,  psychico-moral  faculties  point  him  to  nothing  less  than 
God.  And  so  it  stands  in  the  fore-front  of  divine  revelation, 
“God  created  man  in  His  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God 
created  He  him.”  Ho  poet  who  ever  sang  of  the  dignity  of  maOj 


LECT.  I.] 


CAN  THE  BREACH  BE  FILLED  UP  T 


41 


has  conceived  an  idea  of  him  more  mairnificent  than  this ;  and 
no  sage  ever  before  placed  the  destination  of  man  on  so  im¬ 
measurably  high  a  stage  as  is  done  by  Christ,  when  He  says, 
“  Be  ye  therefore  perfect,  as  your  Father  which  is  in  lieaven  is 
perfect.”  Classical  antiquity  never  attained  to  the  sublimity 
of  this  view  :  in  its  ideas  as  to  the  destination  of  man,  it  had 
no  one  conception  worthy  of  man  ;  for  it  was  without  the  idea 
of  man’s  perfection  and  likeness  to  God.  In  the  doctrine  that 
man  is  created  after  God's  image,  and  therefore  for  God,  the 
Holy  Beri’ptures  alone  have  given  hack  to  men  the  full  idea  of 
their  ovm  dignity,  and  have  set  fofth  the  highest  ‘prineigyle  and 
aim  of  culture,  beyond  wdiich  it  is  alike  impossible  either  for 
philosophy  or  religion  to  pass.  He  who  falls  short  of  this, 
and  is  content  with  some  lower  aim,  does  an  injury  to  bis  own 
dignity,  and.  never  becomes  cultivated  in  the  highest  sense  of 
the  word. 

This  aim  will  likewise  never  be  attained  by  him  who,  in 
respect  to  everything  that  belongs  to  the  Divine  image,  and 
all  the  spiritual  and  moral  capabilities  implanted  in  liim,  fails 
to  cultivate  them  eqiially,  in  harmony  with  God’s  purposes, — 
that  is,  by  all  the  means  which  God  has  provided,  and  in 
conformity  with  the  final  aim  which  He  has  set  before  us.  In 
an  infinite  number  of  cases,  one  capacity  is  thoroughly  culti¬ 
vated  at  the  cost  of  others,  especially  the  intellect  at  the  expense 
of  heart  and  10111.  The  understanding  and  the  memory  are 
stored  with  all  kinds  of  knowledge ;  and  the  external  de¬ 
portment  is  thus  polished  and  refined,  without  any  effort  to 
render  the  heart  and  the  conscience  more  tender  and  sensitive, 
the  will  more  disciplined,  and  to  lead  it  onwards  by  the  path 
of  obedience  to  true  freedom  and  self-government.  Hence 
it  is  tliat  we  frequently  find  inward  rudeness  combined  with 
external  polish. 

And  thus  we  get  at  the  root  of  all  fedse  cxdture,  and  of  all 
inferior  evdture.  Man  falls  into  this  by  a  neglect  of  moral 
self-discipline ;  and  even  in  Paradise  had  fallen  into  it.  The 
first  sin,  as  the  Scriptures  narrate  its  origin,  was  nothing  more 
than  an  attempt  to  cultivate  knowledge  in  a  one-sided  way, 
at  the  cost  of  the  faculties  of  the  heart  and  will.  Man  desired 
“  to  know  good  and  evil,”  to  increase  in  knowledge,  without 
inquiring  whether  heart  and  will  would  be  raised  thereby  to  a 


42 


MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  [lECT,  I. 


liiglier  stage  of  cultivation.  Man  desired  to  be  “  as  God,”  but 
vdtbout  endeavouring  to  approach  God  in  the  divinely  pre¬ 
scribed  path  of  obedience  and  moral  self-discipline.  Thus 
the  new  stage  of  cultivation  was,  in  fact,  a  false  development, 
which  was  increased  by  every  sin  that  followed.  For  every 
sin  tends  to  develope  in  a  wrong  direction  the  moral,  and 
thereby  also  the  intellectual,  faculties  of  man.  We  are 
taught  this  plainly  by  experience,  as  well  as  by  the  word  of 
God.  This  mis-development  has  through  the  universality  of 
sin  become  a  prevailing  power,  and  henceforth  man  is  no 
longer  able  to  attain  to  God-likeness  by  the  direct  j)ath,  but 
only  by  a  return  from  the  false  to  the  true  course  of  develop¬ 
ment  ;  that  which  the  Scriptures  understand  by  conversion  ” 
being  in  reality  nothing  else  than  this  return  fj-om  mis-de- 
velopmeut,  which  makes  us  more  and  more  unlike  God,  to  a 
true,  genuine,  ethical,  and  religious  culture,  through  which  we 
once  more  attain  to  the  Divine  likeness. 

We  thus  arrive  at  the  result,  that  true  moral  culture, 
culture  in  the  liighest  sense  of  the  word,  is  nothing  more  than 
reversion  to  the  Divine  image.  And  how  is  this  to  be  accom¬ 
plished  ?  Since  the  original  character  of  man  as  the  image 
of  God  has  once  for  all  been  obscured  in  various  ways  by  the 
misguiding  power  of  sin,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  our  eternal 
prototype — God — is  invisible,  it  became  necessary  that  God 
should  again  placQ  before  our  eyes  His  holy  image  in  a  perfect 
shape,  as  a  pattern  and  ideal,  from  which  we  might  be  able 
to  recognise  both  Him  and  ourselves, — our  true  nature  and 
destination,  viz.  to  return  to  the  Divine  image.  This  was  and 
is  no  longer  possible  without  Christ,  who  is  “  the  image  of 
the  invisible  God”  (Col.  i.  15),  and  at  the  same  time  the  pure, 
sinless,  perfect  Son  of  man,  in  whom,  therefore,  humanity  was 
manifested  in  its  most  perfect  likeness  to  God.  Now,  therefore, 
all  true  culture  depends  upon  man  forming  himself  anew, 
or  rather  allowing  himself  to  be  formed  according  to  this 
pattern.  He  only  who  puts  on  th(‘  likeness  of  the  All¬ 
perfect  One,  and  on  whom  it  is  distinctly  stamped,  is,  and 
will  be  more  and  more,  completely  educated,  made  like  to  God, 
and  perfect ;  he  alone  will  fulfil  the  purpose  of  his  creation, 
and  accomplish  his  true  destiny. 

Let  us  now  see  what  we  have  ascertained.  The  aim  of 


LECT.  L] 


CAN  THE  I'EEACH  BE  FILLED  UP  ? 


43 


Christianity  is  to  lead  man  hack  to  God  by  the  Way  which  is 
called  Christ ;  and  culture  in  the  highest  sense  is  nothing  else 
than  a  re-educating  back  to  God,  and  to  that  Divine  image 
which  can  only  be  attained  through  Christ.  Where  is  there, 
then,  any  disagreement  between  culture  and  Christianity  ? 
The  breach  between  them  is  filled  up,  and  a  bond  of  union 
formed :  aim  and  end  are  the  same  in  both  ;  both  desire  to  lead 
man  back  to  God,  and  thus  to  the  attainment  of  his  destina¬ 
tion.  Christianity  is  itself  eulture — the  true,  moral,  and  highest 
form  of  eidtare ;  and  culture  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  word 
is  impossible  without  Christianity. 

Only  look  at  a  simple-minded  man,  not  possessing  much 
outward  culture,  but  animated  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ  and  by 
sound  piety :  what  a  sense  of  moral  fitness,  what  correct  tact, 
what  sound  judgment,  especially  as  to  the  ethical  value  of  any 
person  or  action,  do  we  find  gradually  produced  in  him !  In 
such  a  case,  the  educating  influence  of  Christianity  is  frequently 
shown  in  a  most  surprising  way. 

Only  a  false,  merely  external,  religionless,  and  Christless  cul¬ 
ture,  unworthy  of  the  name,  because  nothing  more  than  mere 
outward  training,  is  irreconcilably  opposed  to  Christianity ; 
just  as  it  is  only  a  false,  one-sided  Christianity  which  comes 
into  conflict  with  genuine  culture  and  science.  When  recog- 
nised  in  their  true  nature,  both  are  seen  to  have  a  profound, 
internal  unity ;  for,  as  Michael  Angelo  forcibly  says,  “  Art  is 
the  imitation  of  God.”  All  true  culture  and  science  has  one 
tendency,  to  make  human  life  more  Godlike ;  and  this  is  the 
very  task  of  Christianity.  Therefore,  as  regards  the  whole 
sphere  of  ancient  and  modern  culture,  all  that  truly  cultivates 
and  improves  man,  brings  him  nearer  to  truth  and  to  God,  and 
so  far  from  opposing  Christianity,  prepares  the  way  for  it ; 
whilst  all  that  is  genuinely  Christian  in  Christian  belief,  all 
that  is  divinely  true,  so  far  from  being  a  hindrance  to  true 
culture,  is,  on  the  contrary,  its  purest  and  richest  source  and 
worthiest  exponent. 

We  may  thus  come  to  recognise  the  unity  of  culture  and 
Christianity  from  the  nature  of  both.  But  this  point  may  be 
also  proved  historieally. 

Even  in  that  first  encounter  between  Christian  truth  and 
classical  culture,  when  the  Apostle  Paul  preached  in  the  Areo- 


44 


MODEEN  CULTUEE  AND  CIIEISTIANITY. 


[lect.  L 


pagus  at  Athens  (Acts  xvii.),  we  see  how  the  one  points  to  the 
other.  The  apostle,  in  his  discourse,  quotes  one  of  the  Greek 
pbets :  ''  As  certain  also  of  your  own  poets  have  said,  '  For  we 
'"are  also  His  offspring :  ’  ”  taking  it  as  a  text  for  his  argument. 
Compare  also  the  quotation  from  Menander  (1  Cor.  xv.  33), 
and  the  hexameter  of  Epimenides  (Tit.  i.  12),  both  evincing 
St.  Paul’s  acquaintance  with  classical  literature.  And  we  find 
the  same  thinq  occurring  elsewhere.  Wherever  aught  of  Divine 
liglit  and  truth  appears  in  Greek  culture,  we  find  points  of 
connection  for  the  preaching  of  the  gospel ;  and  Christianity, 
far  from  despising  these  elements  of  truth  springing  up  on 
other  ground,  willingly  adopted,  amplified,  deepened,  and 
glorified  them,  and  in  this  way  proved  its  affinity  to  all  tliat 
was  true,  and  tended  to  real  culture.  All  the  real  treasures 
of  classical  civilisation  the  Christian  Church  was  enabled 
gradually  to  appropriate,  and  so  to  realize  the  innumerable 
helps  afforded  her  by  art  and  science  for  her  own  internal 
development,  the  deeper  grounding  of  her  faith,  and  its  out¬ 
ward  extension;  whilst,  on  the  other  hand,  a  series  of  attempts 
was  undertaken — though  with  much  less  success — by  many 
cultivated  heathen,  to  infuse  new  life  into  the  timeworn 
Greek  philosophies  by  the  adoption  of  the  substance  of  the 
Christian  religion. 

And  truly  this  classical  culture  required  the  support  of 
living  exponents,  if  it  was  to  be  preserved  from  entire  de¬ 
struction.  Wherever  civilisation  is  not  made  to  rest  on  the 
basis  of  moral  and  religious  truth,  it  cannot  attain  to  any  per¬ 
manent  existence,  and  is  incapable  of  preserving  the  natiems 
possessed  of  it  from  spiritual  starvation,  to  say  nothing  of 
political  death.  Greece  and  Eome  were  never  more  civilised, 
in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word,  their  culture  had  never 
become  the  common  property  of  the  people  to  so  great  an 
extent  as  when  they  began  to  decay.  These  are  facts  worthy 
of  consideration  by  all  who  are  of  opinion  that  culture,  that  is, 
the  public  pursuit  of  art  and  science,  can  of  itself  afford  an 
adequate  guarantee  for  the  future  of  a  people,  and  who,  alas, 
endeavour  to  persuade  the  German  nation  that  their  future 
depends  on  exchanging  positive  Christian  religion  for  a  culture 
and  religion  of  mere  humanity!  What  the  fate  of  the  German 
people  would  be  in  this  case,  we  see  clearly  written  upon  the 


LECT.  I.] 


CAN  THE  BREACH  BE  FILLED  UP  ? 


45 


ruins  of  Greece.  The  polite  culture  of  classical  antiquity  was 
deficient  in  any  truly  moral  and  religious  basis.  The  whole 
system  of  life,  all  political,  civil,  and  social  duties,  and  all 
family  relations,  were  in  the  last  resort  based  on  selfishness} 
In  consequence  of  this,  those  nations  came  to  ruin.  And  for 
the  same  reason,  all  non-Christian  civilised  nations  are  even 
at  the  present  day  coming  to  ruin,  caused  by  this  fundamental 
error  which  their  culture  is  unable  to  neutralize  or  overcome. 

For  the  preservation  of  society,  as  well  as  of  its  culture, 
some  new  and  counteracting  basis  of  life  was  necessary, — that 
of  unselfish  love.  And  what  else  was  there  which  could  intro¬ 
duce  this  new  principle  into  the  world,  save  that  religion, 
whose  vital  point  is  the  belief  in  the  love  which  sacrificed 
itself  even  unto  death  in  behalf  of  man — the  love  of  the  Son 
of  God  and  Man  ?  Christianity  alone  could  fulfil  this  great 
mission,  and  has  in  a  measure  fulfilled  it,  so  that  the  heathen 
world  has  sometimes  wonderingly  exclaimed,  “  See  how  these 
Christians  love  one  another !  ”  But  by  the  introduction  of 
this  principle,  Christianity  has  for  ever  eiism’ed  the  preserva¬ 
tion  of  the  genuine  sentiment  of  humanity,  and  has  thus 
become  for  all  ages  the  only  sure  and  certain  exponent,  and  the 
only  inexhaustible  source,  of  all  true  moral  cidture. 

It  is  already  a  matter  of  history  that  Christianity  has  in 
part  fulfilled  this  vocation  by  absorbing  into  itself,  on  the 
Ijreaking  up  of  the  system  of  ancient  culture,  all  the  valuable 
elements  therein  contained.  When  the  irruption  of  the  bar¬ 
barian  nations  threatened  the  whole  system  of  Greeco-Koman 
culture  with  destruction,  the  Christian  Church  became  the 
guardian  and  nurse  of  this  culture,  and  carried  tlie  treasures 
of  its  genius  through  the  storm  into  the  middle  ages.  Chris¬ 
tianity,  in  the  next  place,  kindled  in  the  nations  of  the  West, 
one  after  another,  the  light  of  religious  truth,  and  of  a  more 
elevated  and  permanent  civilisation.  How  could  it  be  other¬ 
wise,  when  the  Church  was  teaching  them  to  think  of  God  as  a 
Spirit,  as  the  Father  of  man,  as  One  who  is  love,  and  to  regard 
mankind  in  the  light  of  God’s  purpose  of  salvation  in  Christ, 
and  of  the  moral  duties  thence  resulting  ?  And  does  it  not  at 

^  For  tlie  more  precise  proof  of  this,  see  C.  Sclimidt,  Die  bilrgerlicke 
Gesellschaft  in  der  altromischen  Welt  und  Hire  Umqestaltung  durcli  das  Christen- 
t/ium,  Leipzig  1857. 


46 


MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CIIRISTIANITT.  [lECT.  I. 


once  become  evident  to  us  what  germs  and  powers  of  culture 
for  personal,  domestic,  civil,  and  political  life  were  contained 
in  this  fundamental  principle  of  Christianity,  if,  on  the  other 
hand,  we  compare  the  misguiding  influence  exercised  by  per¬ 
verted  views  of  God  and  man  on  the  whole  life  of  the  heathen  ? 
From  that  time  forward,  most  of  these  western  nations  began 
to  take  their  place  on  the  stage  of  history ;  they  consequently 
owe  the  wliole  of  their  significance  to  having  come  in  contact 
with  Christianity.  Now  for  the  first  time  their  languages 
become  loritten  languages,  and  new  literatures  begin  to  spring 
up.  It  is  now  that,  on  a  Christian  basis,  under  the  fostering 
guidance  of  the  Church,  a  new  occidental  civilisation  is  con¬ 
structed,  to  which  even  the  ancient  classical  culture  is  allowed 
to  contribute  many  a  useful  stone.  This  new  culture  gradually 
assumed  a  somewhat  different  stamp  in  various  lands,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  varying  national  peculiarities  which,  as  involving 
special  powers  of  culture  and  special  destinies,  true  Christianity 
seeks  not  to  destroy,  but  only,  with  forbearing  hand,  to  purify 
and  refine.  When  the  Church,  by  suflering  the  obscuration  of 
God’s  Word,  bid  fair  to  lose  the  genuine  principle  of  culture, 
and  when  the  spirit  of  selfishness,  with  the  immorality  inse¬ 
parable  from  it,  was  once  more  menacing  the  world  with  a 
relapse  into  heathen  rudeness,  tlien  it  was  that  the  Eefor- 
mation”  that  is,  the  Christian  conscience,  recurred  to  the 
gospel,  finding  in  it  the  solid  lasis  of  all  true  culture,  the 
worship  of  God  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  and  at  the  same  time 
its 'Strongest  motwe,  the  principle  of  liberty  of  conscience,  and 
the  right  of  free  inquiry.  And  this  principle,  which  could  rest 
only  on  the  ground  of  the  gospel,  has  become  the  mainspring 
of  the  whole  system  of  modern  culture.  Since  its  universal 
acknowledgment,  it  has  not  only  given  a  fresh  impulse  to 
investigation  in  all  fields  of  knowledge,  so  that  the  true  age 
of  civilisation  seems  to  be  but  now  beginning,  but  has  also 
in  tlie  largest  measure  contributed  to  tlie  diffusion  of  spiritual 
and  moral  culture  among  the  people.  The  most  comprehensive 
educational  institution  of  modern  times,  the  National  or  Ele¬ 
mentary  school,  may  be  called  the  daughter  of  the  Evangelical 
Church ;  and  if  on  no  other  account,  every  philanthropist  is 
bound  to  confess  that,  for  the  Christian  education  of  the  German 
people,  no  one  acted  more  grandly  and  more  vigorously  than 


LECT.  l] 


CAN  THE  BREACH  BE  FILLED  UP  ? 


47 


Luther.  The  fact  that  in  the  present  day  we  no  longer  have 
merely  to  speak  of  individuals  or  classes,  but  of  inoidcs  in  the 
mass  as  educated,  is  pre-eminently  due  to  these  universal 
channels  of  education  created  by  the  Eeformation.  That 
since  that  era  the  breach  between  the  learned  and  the  lower 
classes  has  more  and  more  vanislied,  that  gradually  the  whole 
life  of  the  people,  public  and  civil,  with  the  whole  system  of 
legislation,  has  assumed  more  and  more  the  character  of  genuine 
humanity,  is  in  the  last  instance  a  result  of  the  giving  back  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  into  the  hands  of  the  people ;  of  the  re¬ 
moval  of  the  chasm  once  existing  between  priests  and  laity ; 
of  the  restoration  of  the  universal  priesthood  (1  Pet.  ii.  9)  ; 
and  of  the  recognition  (attained  through  the  gospel)  of  the 
spiritual  freedom  and  independence  of  each  individual  man. 

Can  it  be  supposed  that  all  this  should  of  a  sudden  have 
been  changed  ?  Can  Christianity,  after  having  been  througli 
whole  centuries  the  exponent  of  all  genuine  educational  de¬ 
velopment,  suddenly  have  placed  itself  in  hostile  opposition  to 
the  culture  which  grew  out  of  it,  and  for  the  most  part  sprang 
from  its  own  impulses  ?  Can  it,  then,  have  ceased  to  diffuse, 
along  with  the  pulsations  of  its  own  inner  life,  the  spirit  of 
true  culture  and  genuine  humanity  ?  What  is  it  that  at  the 
present  day,  more  now  than  at  any  former  time,  sheds  the 
light  of  moral  and  religious  culture  into  the  darkness  of 
heathen  barbarism  ?  Is  it  modern  culture  by  itself,  apart 
from  Christianity  ?  Is  it  the  wandering  natural  philosopher 
or  savant,  wlro  goes  forth  to  make  discoveries  in  distant  lands 
in  order  to  increase  knowledge  at  home,  but  who  gives  neither 
time  nor  trouble  to  the  object  of  contributing  something  lasting 
towards  the  moral  elevation  of  the  aborigines  ?  Or  is  it  the 
European  merchant  in  the  heathen  world,  whose  main  object 
has  for  the  most  part  been  to  make  a  profit  out  of  these 
lands,  and  who  not  only  does  not  morally  elevate  tlie  people 
that  come  in  contact  with  liira,  but  frequently  leads  them  on 
to  a  still  swifter  ruin  ?  Have  tiiere  not  existed  for  centuries 
mercantile  settlements  on  many  coasts,  without  any  kind  of 
educational  institution  on  behalf  of  the  aborigines  having 
been  established  by  the  traders  ?  The  nearer  to  the  coast, 
and  the  more  the  natives  come  in  contact  with  the  trade  of 
the  Christian  world,  the  more  degraded  for  the  most  part  do 


48 


MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  [lECT.  I. 


we  find  the  heathen, — a  fact  which  affords  a  clear  proof  that 
culture  in  the  mere  service  of  selfishness,  is  nothing  less  than 
the  greatest  hindrance  in  the  way  of  elevating  the  mental 
condition  of  any  people. 

Ko ;  it  is  not  merely  the  contact  with  external  culture, 
but  contact  with  the  gospel  wliich  clears  the  path  for  civilisa¬ 
tion  among  the  heathen.  The  Christian  Church  in  modem 
times  has  again  recognised  and  energetically  taken  up  her 
•missionary  task ;  her  emissaries,  wherever  they  can  find  a 
footing,  not  only  combat  the  darkness  of  heathenism  by 
preaching  and  education — at  the  same  time  often  rendering 
themselves  the  advocates  of  the  oppressed  heathen  against 
the  avarice  and  tyranny  of  the  colonists  (I  only  call  attention 
to  the  names  of  a  Thomas  Coke,  a  Burchell,  and  a  Knibb  in 
the  West  Indies,  a  Van-der-Kernp  at  the  Cape,  etc.) ;  but  by 
the  communication  of  more  exact  information  as  to  lands, 
peoples,  manners,  traditions,  and  languages,  hitherto  little  or 
not  at  all  known,  open  out  even  for  home  circles  new  sources 
of  culture,  and  enrich  science  in  many  branches.  It  is  by 
their  labours  and  the  increasingly  important  progress  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  among  the  heathen,  that  we  now  see  a  number  of 
barbarous  peoples  being  gradually  converted  into  cultivated 
nations,  and  beginning  to  make  their  appearance  on  the  stage 
of  the  world’s  history.  By  means  of  the  gospel  their  languages 
are  reduced  to  writing ;  the  commencement  of  their  literature 
is  the  translation  of  the  Bible.  Through  the  influence  of 
Christian  morals  and  freedom,  of  Christian  order  and  activity,^ 
all  the  resources  of  a  land  become  available,  its  prosperity  is 
raised,  and  all  civil  and  social  relations  are  ennobled. 

If  wo  confine  our  attention  to  our  own  German  culture  and 
science,  it  must  certainly  be  confessed  that  for  a  long  time 
past  the  Church  has  no  longer  been  the  exclusive  exponent  of 
them;  we  have  indeed  seen  above  in  how  many  ways  our 
modern  culture  has  placed  itself  in  direct  opposition  to 
Christianity.  Nevertheless,  it  must  be  but  a  very  superficial 
consideration  of  history  which  can  fail  to  perceive  that  even 
our  German  eulture  and  seience — and  in  .many  branches  they 
unquestionably  take  tlie  lead  of  all — are  in  all  essentied  points 
a  product  of  Christianity  and  of  the  gospel;  indeed  that,  even  in 
those  branches  which  manifest  the  greatest  antagonism  to 


LECT.  I.] 


CAN  THE  BREACH  BE  BILLED  UP  ? 


49 


Cliristianity,  they  are  involuntarily,  consciously  or  uncon¬ 
sciously,  indirectly  or  directly,  assisted  by  tlie  spirit  of 
Christianity,  and  are  to  some  extent  either  ruled  or  strongly 
influenced  by  Christian  views. 

At  the  very  outset  we  And  our  wriitcn  language  shaped  by 
the  gospel,  and  its  better  elements  interpenetrated  by  it.  At- 
the  head  of  German  literature,  as  its  most  ancient  monument, 
we  confessedly  place  the  Gothic  ti-anslation  of  the  Bible  by 
Bishop  Ulfilas  as  “  a  prophecy  of  the  vocation  and  tendency 
of  the  whole  people.”  At  the  commencement  of  the  New 
High  German  w'e  have,  as  its  nucleus  and  groundwork,  the 
traMslation  of  the  Bible  by  Luther,  who  thereby  almost  re¬ 
created  our  lanmia^e,  and  that  in  a  degree  seldom  reached 
by  any  other  literary  work.^  This  New  High  German  whicli 
we  still  speak — for  we  have  deviated  but  little,  and  that  to 
the  detriment  of  force  and  expression,  from  Luther’s  language 
— is  both  in  body  and  spirit  the  Protestant  dialect,  mainly 
indebted  to  Luther  and  the  gospel  for  its  “  freed om-breath- 
ing  nature,”  its  force,  opulence,  and  beauty,  as  well  as  for  its 
naturalization  as  the  written  language  of  the  educated  and 
learned  classes  (who  previously  always  wrote  in  Latin). 

Moreover,  our  German  foetieal  literature  does  not  disown  the 
Christian  soil  from  which  it  grew.  In  the  works  which  mark 
the  boundr'ies  of  the  different  periods  of  poetry,  we  see  pro¬ 
ducts  of  the  Christian  spirit  wdiich  give  a  colour  to  the  follow¬ 
ing  literature.  In  our  ancient  German  poetry,  that  grand 
Christian  epic  the  Old-Saxon  “  Heliand  ”  {lleilancL,  Saviour) 
stands  prominently  out  as  a  remarkable  proof  how  quickly 
and  deeply  Christianity  made  its  way  into  the  German  blood 
and  life.  The  first  classical  period  of  our  literature,  the  time 
of  our  national  epic  poetry  and  minstrelsy  in  the  middle  ages, 
when  it  reached  its  acme  and  purest  expression,  bore  the 
impress-  of  “  the  most  intimate  blending  of  German  nation¬ 
ality  and  Christian  faith.”  At  the  beginning  of  the  New 
High  German,  we  find  the  hymns  of  the  Evangelical  Church 
laying  hold  with  a  sudden  power  on  the  hearts  of  the  German 
people  ;  and  these  hymns  have  ever  since  remained  the  living 

'  On  tliis  point,  cf.  Liibkcr,  Vorinhje  nher  Blldunri  tmd  ChrlstentJaim,  Ham¬ 
burg  1863,  p.  202  ff.,  267  if.  ;  R.  v.  Ranmer,  IJie  Einich'kuivj  des  Christen- 
thums  aaf  die  cdthochdeutschc  Sprache,  Berlin  1845. 

D 


50 


MODEKN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 


[lect.  I. 


expression  of  their  religions  thought  and  feeling.  How  much 
have  they  contributed  to  the  improvement  and,  in  a  Christian 
point  of  view,  the  refinement  of  popular  song  !  And  who  was 
it  that  in  the  last  century  ushered  in  the  day  of  our  modern 
classical  literature,  not  indeed  as  a  sun,  but  as  a  bright  morning 
star  ?  Was  it  not  Klopstock,  who  in  his  “  Messiah  ”  and  his 
Odes  blended  ancient  classical  with  German  Christian  elements, 
and  thereby  struck  the  key-note  of  all  our  modern  poetry 
and  art,  which,  however  far  they  may  in  individual  cases 
have  severed  themselves  from  specific  Christian  ideas,  still, 
in  their  most  beautiful  and  elevated  creations,  do  not  disown 
the  influence  of  Christian  views  of  the  world  and  human  life, 
and  could  never  have  become  what  they  are,  except  amongst  a 
cliristianly  educated  people  ?  Or  would  it  have  been  possible 
for  an  Euripides  to  have  written  an  “  Iphigenia”  (to  say 
nothing  of  a  “  Faust  ”)  such  as  that  of  Goethe  ? 

The  case  is  similar  with  regard  to  our  other  arts  and  sciences. 
It  is  true  that  in  modern  times  they  take  their  own  course, 
frequently  in  opposition  to  Christianity.  But  if  from  German 
music,  painting,  sculpture,  architecture,  and  from  the  most 
important  branches  of  German  science,  we  take  away  that 
which  owes  its  origin  and  development  to  the  influence  of 
Christian  ideas,  we  shall  soon  find  that  we  have  deprived 
them  of  their  best,  most  spiritual,  most  ideal  elements,  which 
most  tend  to  education  and  elevation ;  and  we  shall  immedi¬ 
ately  recognise  the  impossibility  of  any  such  separation,  just 
because  Christianity  is  most  intimately  intertwined  with  our 
whole  culture. 

Or  if,  in  the  next  place,  we  consider  our  civilised  life  in 
other  points,  both  public  and  private,  whence  proceeds  that 
earnest  assiduity  in  labour  which  distinguishes  us  Germans 
beyond  most  other  nations  ?  It  is  an  inestimable  fruit  of  the 
gospel.  Labour  was  considered  by  our  heatlien  forefathers  as 
a  dishonour.  And  even  in  the  present  day,  where  the  gospel 
has  not  free  course,  the  stirring  disposition,  the  assiduity,  and 
the  spirit  of  enterprise  of  the  people  is  disproportionately  less. 
The  important  difference  between  Protestant  and  Eomanist 
countries  in  tliis  respect  affords  everyvAiere,  but  especially  in 
Germany  and  Switzerland,  a  whole  series  of  irrefutable  proofs 
of  this  fact. 


LECT.  I.] 


CAN  THE  BKEACH  BE  FILLED  UP  ? 


51 


Whence,  again,  come  our  views  of  right  and  order,  of 
freedom  and  law ;  whence  comes  the  humane  spirit  of  onr 
jurisprudence  and  of  our  civil  institutions  ?  For  the  most 
part,  from  wdiat  the  gospel  has  taught  us  of  the  dignity  of 
mnn,  of  true  philanthropy,  and  of  human  rights  and  obliga¬ 
tions.  On  rnei'ely  heathen  ground,  no  certain  harrier  can  he 
raised  against  the  most  heartless  despotism,  or  against  the 
most  shameful  oppression  and  slavery.  Even  an  Aristotle, 
the  most  cultivated  heathen  philosopher,  thought  that  only  a 
portion  of  mankind  possessed  a  rational  soul,  and  that  the 
others  had  merely  a  higher  kind  of  animal  soul,  and  w’ere 
therefore  created  for  slavery  I  The  only  sure  guarantee  for 
spiritual  and  ultimately  for  civil  freedom  is  contained  in 
the  gospel.  Modern  civilised  states  are  indebted  to  the  gospel 
for  their  liberal  institutions. 

Lastly,  on  what  are  founded  the  views  we  entertain  at  the 
present  day  as  to  marriage  and  family  life  ?  What  is  it  that 
has  aided  the  female  sex  in  attaining  the  free  and  dignified 
position  which  it  assumes  among  us  ?  What  is  it  that  has 
taught  us  to  treat  children  as  if  they  were  “little  majesties”  ? 
It  was  and  is  the  influence  of  the  gospel,  which  teaches  the 
equality  of  all  men  before  God,  and  pays  regard  to  every  in¬ 
dividual  man  on  account  of  the  Divine  image  in  him,  and  his 
own  eternal  destiny.  Allow  me,  at  this  point,  to  state  to  you, 
my  lady  hearers,  that  as  regards  position  in  society,  none 
are  so  much  indebted  to  Christianity  as  you.  No  one  has  so 
much  to  fear  as  you  from  any  complete  surrender  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  and  from  the  prevalence  of  unbelief.  Your  freedom  and 
dignity  stand  and  fall  with  Christianity.  One  glance  at  the 
civilised  heathen  nations,  both  of  ancient  and  modern  times, 
and  the  position  that  your  sex  assumes  among  them,  wall  show 
you  how  little  a  culture  without  Ciiristianity  and  without  Christ 
is  able  to  guard  you  against  the  most  disgraceful  servitude. 

In  fact,  regarding  our  own  civilised  life  at  the  present  day 
from  whatever  side  we  please,  we  everywhere  come  in  contact 
with  Christianity  as  the  spiritual  power  which  supports  and 
penetrates  it.  Even  a  Fichte,  who  certainly  took  up  a  very 
free  position  in  regard  to  Christianity,  was  bound  to  confess, 
“  We  and  our  whole  age  are  rooted  in  the  soil  of  Christianity, 
and  have  sprung  from  it ;  it  has  exercised  its  influence  in  the 


52  MODEEX  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  [lECT.  L 

most  manifold  Y-ays  on  tlie  wliole  of  our  culture,  and 
should  he  absolutely  nothing  of  all  that  we  are,  if  this  mighty 
principle  had  not  preceded  us  ”  {Amoeisung  ziim  scligen  Lcben). 

These  considerations  apply  to  us  Germans  in  a  very  special 
measure.  iN'o  other  nation  has  from  the  very  first  yielded 
itself  so  heartily  to  the  influence  of  the  gospel ;  no  other 
possessed  in  its  original  purity  of  manners  and  force  of  cha¬ 
racter  so  great  a  predisposition  to  Christianity;  no  other  nation 
ill  tlie  world’s  history  has  become  so  deeply  imbued  Avith  the 
Christian  spirit  or  made  itself  to  so  great  an  extent  its  expo¬ 
nent.  Xo  nation,  therefore,  is  less  able  to  divorce  itself  and 
its  culture  from  Christianity.  It  may  be  thought  grand  to  dis¬ 
own  or  to  decry  the  veritable  sources  of  our  present  culture,  but 
it  certainly  is  not  grateful.  Even  the  most  sceptical  cannot 
Avithdraw  himself  from  the  influence  of  Christianity  ;  he  must 
derive  his  intellectual  nourishment  from  the  fruits  of  a  culture 
Avhich  Christianity  created ;  indeed,  eAmn  in  assailing  it,  he 
is  compelled  for  the  most  part  to  derive  his  Aveapons  from  it, 
just  as  he  Avho  seeks  to  discover  spots  in  the  sun  must  for 
this  purpose  borroAv  the  light  of  the  sun  itself 

Having  thus  recognised  the  historical  unity  of  Christi¬ 
anity  and  culture,  and  the  Avay  in  Avhich  they  iiiAvardly  per- 
Amde  and  blend  Avith  one  another,  especially  in  our  ovm 
nationality,  it  aauU  be  perfectly  clear  to  us  that  nothing  can  be 
more  perverse  than  to  rend  asunder  things  Avhich  both  ideally 
and  historical!}"  are  so  intimately  connected.  The  fact  already 
observed,  tiiat  so  many  are  labouring  hard  to  Aviden  this  breach, 
and  that  the  orthodox  themselves  have  often  been  found 
Avorking  toAvards  the  same  end,  is  the  greatest  misfortune  cf 
our  time.  “The  deeply  tragical  contrast,”  as  has  been  strikingly 
observed,  “  Avhich  peiwades  the  Avhole  of  modern  history,  is 
that  the  idea  of  humanitv,  born  and  nurtured  in  the  bosom 
of  Christianity  by  the  influence  of  the  gospel  for  a  thousand 
years,  has  been  torn  aAvay  from  the  root  on  AAdiich  it  groAv, 
and  should  noAv  be  placed  in  conflict  AAuth  Christianity  as  a 
poAver  hostile  to,  and  seeking  to  destroy  it.  It  is  desired  to 
cherish  culture  Avithout  true  culture,  and  civilisation  Avithout 
the  root  of  all  true  morality  ;  it  is  desired  to  haAm  the  system 
of  laAvs  built  upon  the  idea  of  humanity  Avithout  acknoAvledg- 
iug  the  obligation  of  love  and  self-denial,  in  the  absence  of 


LECT.  I.] 


CAl^  THE  BEEACII  BE  FILLED  UP  ? 


Do 


wliicL,  tlie  free  and  joyous  recognition  of  the  rights  of  others, 
and  also  of  society  as  a  whole,  cannot  possibly  last  long.  Let 
ns  openly  confess  the  fact,  that  this  contradiction  constitutes 
the  main  root  of  all  the  conflicts  and  crises  pregnant  with  evil, 
by  which  our  time  is  agitated  ”  {Fabri,  as  above). 

If,  in  the  face  of  -this  unhappy  tendency,  you  still  maintain 
the  internal  unity  of  culture  and  Christianity;  if  you  are  just 
enough  not  to  forget  all  that  we,  either  the  so-called  or  really 
educated  classes,  owe  as  a  matter  of  history  to  Christianity ; 
then,  as  far  as  you  are  concerned,  the  great,  although  in  point 
of  fact  unnatural  and  artificial,  breach  between  culture  and 
Christianity  is  filled  up,  or  at  least  the  way  is  made  clear  for 
their  union. 

And  now,  to  bring  the  foregoing  remarks  to  a 'practical  result, 
before  believing  in  any  alleged  contradiction  between  culture 
and  Christianity,  ask  whether  it  be  true  culture  and  true 
Christianity,  or  distorted,  falsified  forms  of  either  which  are 
thus  opposed.  No  truth,  when  dealt  with  by  man,  is  safe 
against  disfigurement,  not  even  Christian  truth ;  no  mental 
possession  safe  against  misuse.  In  every  case,  instead  of 
regarding  the  form  in  which  these  opposing  elements  are  made 
to  appear,  look  to  their  true  inward  'nature,  and  you  will  find 
affinity  instead  of  contradiction.  Is  your  attention  drawn  to 
some  results  of  scientific  inquiry,  apparently  irreconcilable 
with  Scripture  ?  first  ask  the  question — Are  tliese  real  results, 
or,  despite  the  confidence  with  which  especially  in  popular 
works  they  are  represented  as  perfectly  reliable,  are  not  the 
views  of  really  scientific  men  so  divided  that  the  best  course 
is  to  suspend  your  judgment ;  or  even  if  this  be  not  the  case, 
might  not  after  all  a  correct  understanding  and  explanation  of 
Scripture  obviate  all  serious  difficulties?  Do  the  divisions  and 
schisms  of  the  Church  offend  you?  then  ask  the  question — Am 
I  to  lay  this  to  the  charge  of  Christianity,  that  is,  to  the  cliarge 
of  Christ  Himself,  His  Word  and  Spirit  ?  Was  it  not  His 
dying  prayer,  “  that  they  may  be  one  ”  ?  Has  not  the  primi¬ 
tive  time  left  us  as  a  testament  the  special  article  of  faith, 
“I  believe  in  One  Holy  Catholic  Church”  ?  Yon  will  then 
be  less  ready  to  find  fault  with  Christianity  itself,  though  you 
may  perceive  much  imperfection,  and  hence  many  differences, 
in  the  various  Churches. 


54 


MODEKX  CULTURE  AXD  CHRISTIANITY. 


[lect.  I. 


If  yon  take  offence  at  the  ecclesiastical  mcsidcdncss  and 
^prejudice  of  many,  who  are  of  opinion  that  outside  the  limits 
of  their  own  Church  there  is  little  else  but  error,  you  must 
recollect  that  true  Christianity,  that  is,  Christ  Himself,  says  in 
opposition  to  these  opinions,  “  Other  sheep  I  have  which  are 
not  of  this  fold,”  and  fromis&s  that  “there  shall  be  one  fold 
and  one  shepherd.”  If  you  take  offence  at  the  intolerance  of 
many  over-zealous  representatives  of  orthodoxy.  Just  inquire 
whether  the  rationalists  of  ancient  and  modern  times  were 
any  better  in  this  respect  (the  Swiss  and  Baden  schools, 
for  instance)  ;  and  next,  call  to  mind  that  Christianity,  be¬ 
cause  it  does  not  assert  itself  to  be  a  truth,  but  the,  truth, 
the  cibsolute  truth,  must  come  in  conflict  with,  and  denounce 
as  error,  everything  wliich  contradicts  its  spirit ;  but  that 
in  this  conflict  it  admits  of  no  kind  of  carnal  weapons  (2 
Cor.  X.  4)  ;  it  is  intolerant  in  the  most  tolerant  way  ;  it 
merely  witnesses  against  everything  antichristian  in  life  and 
doctrine,  but  neither  wishes  nor  is  able  to  use  compulsion. 
He  who  is  the  Truth  is  also  the  great  Patience  of  the  world, 
and  once  said  to  His  disciples,  Avhen  hastily  refusing  to  tolerate 
one  who  was  virtually  if  not  formally  associated  with  them : 
“Forbid  him  not;  for  he  that  is  not  against  us  is  on  our  side;” 
and  on  another  occasion,  when  they  wished  to  rain  down  fire 
from  heaven  on  those  who  rejected  them,  put  tliem  to 
shame  by  the  inquiry,  “  Know  ye  not  what  manner  of  spirit 
ye  are  of  ?  ”  Let  us  not  then  lay  to  the  charge  of  Christ 
Himself,  or  of  Christianity,  the  faults  of  His  short-sighted, 
narrow-minded,  or  passionate  disciples. 

Or,  if  you  are  disgusted  by  the  onesided  illilcral  judgment 
passed  by  many  Christians  on  matters  of  art  and  science,  do  not 
ascribe  this  to  the  spirit  of  Christianity  itself ;  but  rather  recol¬ 
lect  how  the  apostle,  casting  a  kingly  glance  at  the  immeasurable 
possessions  of  the  Christian  man,  says,  “  All  things  are  yours, 
both  present  and  future ;”  and  that  into  the  Holy  City  “  shall 
be  brought  the  glory  and  honour  of  the  nations.”  Or,  when 
disposed  to  tal^e  offence  at  churchmen  who  timidly  resist  any 
freer  political  development,  do  not  forget  that  the  true  Church 
maintains,  in  the  words  of  the  apostle,  that  “  where  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord  is,  there  is  liberty,”  and  that  Christianity  furthers 
the  cause  of  freedom  everywhere  on  the  one  foundation  of  the 


LECT.  I.] 


CAX  THE  BEEACH  EE  FILLED  UP  ? 


55 


Truth  'svliich  maketh  free.  So  soon  as  you  recognise  the  fact 
that  the  imperfection  of  the  Church  and  of  individual  Cliris- 
tians  is  not  a  consequence  hut  a  contradiction  of  the  genuine 
spirit  of  Christianity,  and  therefore  is  not  by  any  means  to  be 
laid  to  its  charge ;  that  the  obstructions  often  placed  in  the 
way  of  genuine  culture  and  true  progress  are  produced  by 
those  imperfections,  and  not  by  the  nature  of  Christianity 
itself ;  that  the  tendency  of  both,  when  rightly  understood,  is 
essentially  the  same,  viz.  to  help  man  to  attain  his  divine 
destination  ;  and  that  Christianity  has  proved  itself  to  be  even 
historically  the  richest  source  and  the  surest  exponent  of  true 
culture, — then  our  scruples  vanish,  and  the  true  method  of 
reconciliation  is  discovered. 

If  we  go  on  to  inquire  what,  in  the^^e"  of  -  this  position, 
is  our  'present  taslz,  and  especially  t]|iKt  of  our  Theology  and 
our  Church,  in  endeavouring  to  facilitate  the  return  to  belief 
of  our  educated  classes,  it  is  first  and  foremost,  not  to 
under-estimate  the  depth  of  the  yet  existing  breach,  and 
not  to  proceed  too  rashly  in  bridging  it  over  —  a  course 
which  would  result  in  rendering  bad  service  to  both  sides. 
We  may  well  rejoice  if  our  tlieology,  more  now  than  at 
any  previous  time,  aspires  to  a  “reconciliation  with  the  de¬ 
velopments  of  modern  culture,”  the  very  motto  which  tlie 
leaders  of  the  “Protestant  Union”  inscribe  on  their  banner. 
We  wish  for  all  this,  and  we  are  bound  to  wish  for  it.  Faith, 
so  far  as  it  assumed  a  scientific  character,  has  in  all  times 
been  compelled  to  come  to  an  understanding  with  the  develop¬ 
ments  of  culture,  and  to  put  itself  in  accord  with  them.  But 
neither  formerly  nor  now  is  this  breach  to  be  closed  by  any 
rationalistic  methods,  such  as  would  tend  to  efface  the  essential 
difference  between  many  views  now  in  vogue  and  the  funda¬ 
mental  doctrines  of  Christianity ;  surrendering,  for  instance, 
tin  ^  miraculous  element  and  other  points  of  Christian  faith 
which  modern  culture  thinks  itself  to  have  outgrown,  -whilst 
the  fundamental  principle  of  Christianity,  the  belief  in  a 
supernatural  revelation,  is  still  unrecognised  by  the  spirit  of 
our  age.  A  union  on  such  terms  can  only  be  sought  for  by 
him  who  makes  a  merely  secondary  matter  of  the  main  point 
of  all,  the  belief  in  Christ  as  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God, 
and  as  God  incarnate,  and  utterly  fails  to  recognise  *the  true 


MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 


[lect.  I. 


ne 


nature  of  Christianity  as  we  have  previously  defined  it.  In 
such  alliance,  the  culture  of  the  present  day  would  become  a 
dangerous  parasite,  clinging  round  the  great  tree  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  nourished  on  its  juices,  growing  with  its  growth,  but 
at  the  same  time  exhausting  its  vitality  until  it  ceases  to 
exist ! 

But  neither  does  it  helj)  the  matter  to  adhere  to  the  forms 
in  which  the  old  faith  has  crystallized,  and  to  try  to  force 
the  intellectual  convictions  of  them  upon  our  time,  in  total 
disregard  of  the  progress  of  science.  By  this  course  the 
breach  can  only  be  made,  wider.  Our  duty  is  rather  to 
endeavour  to  penetrate  more  deeply  into,  and  present  more 
comprehensively,  the  old  truths  of  faith  by  the  aid  of  the 
growing  light  of  science,  especially  that  of  scriptural  in¬ 
vestigation.  It  is  better  at  once  honourably  to  acknowledge 
as  faulty  anything  which  is  evidently  shown  to  be  faulty  in 
the  mode  in  which  it  is  comprehended  or  familiarized,  firmly 
maintaining,  however,  entire,  and  ^indiminished,  the  funda¬ 
mental  ijoints  of  belief,  which  (as  we  shall  subsequently  see) 
neither  science  nor  criticism  can  everthrow— for  they  come  out 
of  every  contest  more  firmly  and  surely  established, — I  mean 
the  great  facts  connected  with  our  redemption  through  Christ. 
It  cannot  tend  to  peace  if  all  the  ideas  wdiich  are  moving 
society  at  the  present  day  —  those  of  freedom,  progress, 
humanity,  civilisation,  etc. — are  straightway  branded  by  the 
Church  as  antichristian,  as  has  recently  been  done  by  Borne : 
let  tlie  Church,  rather,  lovingly  receive  and  acknowledge  all 
the  elements  of  truth  contained  therein ;  but  let  her,  on  the 
other  hand,  seek  to  purify  and  clear  them  from  all  that  is  false. 

If  the  dissension  is  to  be  radically  overcome,  tve  must  cdlovj 
to  freedom  that  tvhicli  Iclongs  to  freedom,  and  must  leave  to  faith 
that  which  Iclongs  to  faith.  Let  us  at  length  learn  to  look 
beyond  the  many  secondary  matters  dividing  us  in  belief  and 
practice  ;  let  us  ]iot  bind  the  conscience  where  Christ  has  not 
bound  it,  and  let  us  make  a  distinction  between  the  essential 
and  the  non-essential.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  let  us  not 
treat  main  points,  such  as  the  divinity  of  Christ,  llis  atoning 
death.  His  resurrection,  etc.,  as  secondary  matters ;  let  us  not 
turn  freedom  into  licence,  nor  ignore  the  doctrinal  limits  of 
our  faith  that  are  laid  down  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  by  Christ 


LECT.  I.] 


CAN  THE  BREACH  BE  FILLED  UP  ? 


57 


and  the  apostles,  limits  without  which  faith  must  cease  to 
exist.  Let  us  not  resolve  historical,  fundamental  matters  of 
fact  (as,  for  instance,  the  resurrection  of  Christ)  unto  mere 
mental  conceptions  and  general  vague  ideas,  whereby  unspeak¬ 
able  confusion  is  produced,  and  absolutely  no  internal  recon¬ 
ciliation  between  faith  and  the  culture  of  the  time  is  brought 
about ;  faith,  on  the  contrary,  being  sacrificed  to  the  repug¬ 
nance  to  miracles  exhibited  in  our  time.  So  soon  as  we 
eliminate  the  cross  of  Christ  from  our  belief,  and  thus  chip  off 
the  angles  of  our  corner-stone,  throwing  overboard  all  that 
•  conies  in  conflict  with  natural  sense  and  understanding,  there 
is  no  doubt  that  the  union  between  faith  and  the  spirit  of 
the  present  day  is  easy  enough  :  the  offence  of  the  cross  ceases, 
but  Christian  faith  as  such  is  at  the  same  time  annihilated. 

If  any  true  reconciliation  is  to  be  effected,  it  must  rather 
be  accomplished :  First,  by  a  genuine  apprehension  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  in  this  its  “  divine  foolishness,  which  is  wiser  than 
men,”  its  divine  nucleus  and  centre,  Christ  Himself  the  eternal 
Son  ;  and  in  its  perfect  purity,  beauty,  and  truth,  hearing 
its  ovm  'witness  to  every  human  heart,  and  faithfully  presented 
to  tlie  world  :  Secondly,  by  a  genidne  apprehension  of  the 
true  nature  and  value  of  culture  and  science,  their  ennobling 
moral  tendency  in  the  formation  of  heart  and  character,  and 
not  merely  of  the  intellect;  and  Tiiirdly,  by  the  bringing  home 
to  the  consciousness  of  men  in  general,  the  i'nivard  affinity 
of  this  tendency  with  that  of  true  Chrstianity.  The  gospel, 
freed  from  the  disfigurements  inflicted  upon  it  by  the  prejudice 
of  friends  and  the  misunderstanding  of  opponents,  must  again 
be  brought  home  to  the  mind  and  conscience  of  our  age  as  the 
only  sure  basis  of  all  true  popular  culture,  and  once  more 
made  intelligible  to  the  genius  of  the  nineteenth  century,  so  as  to 
impart  to  the  educated  classes  of  the  present  day,  with  all 
their  perverted  and  over-stimulated  tastes,  a  feeling  and  an 
interest  for  divine  truth.  This  result  will  not  be  effected  by 
a  paring  down  or  total  rejection  of  the  germ  of  gosjiel  truth, 
but  by  developing  this  germ,  and  by  disclosing  to  men’s  hearts 
its  in\vard  spring  of  life.^  Only  let  the  Church  hold  fast 

'  It  was  one  of  Vinet’s  latest  utterances,  that,  in  the  defence  of  Christian  truth, 
*•  we  must  revert  to  the  eleinentaiy,  fundamental,  and  eternally  unshaken  points, 
if  we  desire  that  the  new  generation  should  again  he  fed  with  fire  bread  of  life.” 


58 


MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  [lECT.  I. 


Him  wlio  is  lier  foundation  and  her  end,  Christ ;  only  let  her 
in'odaim  Him  not  luith  the,  old  merely,  hut  also  with  new  tongues. 
Let  her  be  mindful  to  present  Him  to  the  present  age,  with  its 
needs  of  culture,  not  merely  in  His  divine  glory,  hut  also  in  His 
humayi  heauty  and  moral  purity ;  and  to  exliibit  the  free  grace 
and  love  of  God  manifested  in  Him  not  merely  as  indispensahle, 
but  also  as  all-sufficient,  to  a  world  feverishly  agitated,  and  in 
every  sphere  of  knowledge  and  action  wearily  excited,  and  as 
the  only  true  source  of  peace  and  the  only  power  which  can 
permanently  satisfy  the  deepest  needs  of  human  nature.  These 
vital  characteristics  of  the  gospel  have  for  many  centuries 
wonderfully  attracted  hearts  and  minds,  and  the  more  purely 
and  plainly  it  was  set  forth  the  greater  was  the  power  it 
exercised ;  and  this  attraction  it  will  retain  until  the  end  of 
time. 

The  ultimate  answer  to  all  questions,  the  solution  of  all 
doubts,  is  contained  in  Him  who  is  the  mystery  of  all  mys¬ 
teries,  tlie  revelation  of  all  revelations,  that  is,  in  Christ  the 
Light  of  the  world.  If  Christendom,  now  in  so  many  ways 
Christless,  is  brought  back  to  a  contemplation  of  Christ,  false 
prejudices  will  soon  vanish,  and  the  contradictions  between 
knowledge  and  faith  will  begin  to  be  solved,  and  from  this 
light,  beams  will  issue  which  will  gradually  illuminate  even 
the  darkest  mysteries,  or  ensure  the  certainty  of  a  future 
enliglitenment.  When  that  is  the  case,  the  inward  schism  of 
which  we  have  spoken  is  already  overcome,  and  the  breach 
closes  of  itself 

cannot,  indeed,  expect,  and  more  especially  if  we  accept 
the  testimony  of  Holy  Scripture,  that  the  breacli  will  speedily 
be  healed  in  regard  to  all.  Ho  one,  indeed,  will  wish  to 
deny  that  in  our  modern  culture  there  is  much  that  is  false, 
egotistic,  and  selfish ;  much  that  is  misleading  and  exaggerated, 
and  consequently  opposed  to  true  culture.  Against  these 
untrue  elements  of  culture,  Christianitj^  will  and  must  always 
take  the  field ;  it  must  not  oppose  progress,  although  it  is  at 
all  times  bound  to  show  itself  hostile  to  the  sins  of  progress, 
just  as  from  its  very  commencement  it  has  always  testified 
and  striven  against  such  sins.  Between  Christless  eulture  and 
Christianity,  a  hridge  of  aecommodation  can  no  more  he  huilt  than 
between  light  and  darkness;  and  woe  to  him  who  undertakes 


LECT.  I.] 


CAN  THE  BEEACII  BE  FILLED  UP  ? 


59 


this  !  But  whatever  in  our  modern  culture  is  thorouglily 
Christless,  and  therefore  Godless,  is  unworthy  of  the  name, 
and  can  therefore  claim  from  us  no  further  consideration ; 
it  is  mere  naked  rudeness  and  selfishness,  ill  -  disguised 
hy  the  gaudy  rags  of  outward  decency ;  a  mere  cherishing 
of  the  sensual  nature,  which,  left  to  itself,  would  soon  de¬ 
generate  into  monstrous  barbarism,  of  which  we  already  see 
many  indications.  See,  for  instance,  how  fearfully  the  thirst 
for  gold  unchristianizes  and  demoralizes  men,  and  how  much 
internal  rudeness  and  want  of  moral  discipline  are  thereby 
fostered  in  the  face  of  all  external  and  apparent  culture ! 
With  moral  failings  of  this  kind,  which  are,  alas !  closely 
blended  wdth  the  culture  of  the  present  day,  the  spirit  of 
Christianity  can  never  he  reconciled.  To  overcome  tliese 
failings,  we  need,  as  we  have  previously  recognised,  a  high 
degree  of  moral  resolution ;  and  he  who  is  not  capable  of  this, 
will  never  be  able  to  embrace  even  the  purest  form  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  ;  indeed,  the  more  purely  Christianity  presents  itself  to 
such  a  one,  the  more  direct  will  be  the  antagonism  in  which 
he  finds  himself  placed  towards  it. 

If,  however,  it  is  anywhere  high  time  to  undertake  with 
earnest  diligence  the  work  of  filling  up  this  great  breach  in 
our  modern  civilised  life,  that  duty  methinks  is  incumbent 
upon  us.  The  Teutonic  races  have  a  special  need  and  a  special 
vocation  to  overcome  this  deep-seated  contradiction  from  which 
our  age,  and  most  of  all  we  Germans,  so  greatly  suffer.  No 
nation  has  learnt  to  feel  its  internal  disruptions  so  painfully 
as  we.  We  are  more  truly  than  any  other  “  a  nation  of  con¬ 
trarieties.”  Down  to  the  latest  period,  in  which,  since  the 
events  of  1866,  the  German  spirit  has  manifested  itself  as 
more  and  more  essentially  Protestant  in  church  and  school, 
science  and  politics,  the  opposing  parties  were  very  evenly 
balanced.  This  continuous  tension  of  opposing  forces  of  equal 
strength  has  been  the  cause  of  the  paralysis  of  German  power. 

The  difference,  however,  which  in  truth  has  been  and  is  the 
greatest  of  all  others,  and  before  all  others  has  laid  hold  of  the 
heart  and  marrow  of  our  people,  is  a  religious  one.  Other 
countries  are  tinged  with  one  prevailing  colour  in  a  religious 
point  of  view’ ;  they  are  either  Protestant  or  Eomanist.  Down 
to  a  very  recent  period  we  were  divided  into  twm  nearly  equal 


60 


MODERN  CULTURE  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  [LECT,  I. 


parts  ;  and  this  religions  and  ecclesiastical  dualism  has  con¬ 
tributed  and  still  contributes  the  greatest  share  to  political  divi¬ 
sion  between  N’orth  and  South.  Lately,  indeed,  in  consequence 
of  the  mastery  obtained  by  Jesuitism  in  the  Eoman  Catholic 
Church,  the  breach  between  tlie  two  Churches  has  become  more 
and  more  irreconcilable  ;  and  this  growing  breach  is  nowhere 
more  painfully  felt  than  among  our  people.  Both  camps  are 
pervaded  by  this  internal  dissension  between  believers  and  un¬ 
believers,  between  Christianity  and  modern  ideas,  and  in  public 
life  neither  tendency  has  hitherto  held  unlimited  sway,  while 
both  parties  are  active  and  powerful.  Elsewhere,  a  country 
developes  either  a  predominant  energy  of  faith,  as,  in  a  practical 
point  of  view,  England,  which  is  still  on  the  whole  Christian 
and  evangelical,  or  a  special  energy  of  unbelief,  as  Erance, 
which  perhaps  to  a  greater  degree  than  any  other  nation  has 
been  disintegrated  by  infidelity  from  the  days  of  Voltaire  down 
to  the  Comtes,  Eenans,  Michelets,  etc.  Germany  (and  in  a  less 
measure  Switzerland  also)  furthers,  in  a  way  peculiar  to  her¬ 
self,  hoth  belief  and  unbelief  in  almost  equal  qoroportions.  The 
believing  Protestant  theology  of  Germany,  from  the  Eeformers 
dowm  to  Schleiermacher,  Neander,  Tholuck,  Dorner,  etc.,  has 
rendered  the  greatest  assistance  towards  the  more  profound 
comprehension,  the  scientific  confirmation  and  vindication  of 
our  faith  ;  by  its  intellectual  products  the  Protestant  theology 
of  the  whole  world  is  still  nourished.  The  Eoman  Catholic 
faith,  likewise,  as  regards  its  scientific  vindication,  has  found  its 
chief  supports  in  Germany,  where  'alone  any  scientific  Eoman 
Catholic  theology  can  be  said  really  to  exist,  although  lat¬ 
terly  more  and  more  oppressive  fetters  have  been  imposed 
upon  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  negative  and  destructive  produc¬ 
tions  of  German  theology  have  formed  the  groundwork  in 
other  countries  of  opinions  hostile  to  Christian  faith.  Among 
all  our  opponents,  it  is  German  philosophers,  critics,  and 
tlieologians,  who  have  made  the  most  dangerous  attacks  on 
the  framework  of  our  Christian  faith ;  and  we  find  our  foreign 
assailants  standing  shoulder  to  shoulder  with  our  domestic 
enemies. 

Thus  among  us,  more  than  in  other  countries,  we  see  the 
deepest  antitheses  maintaining  a  nearly  equal  balance.  We 


LECT.  I.]  CAN  THE  BIIEACU  BE  FILLED  UP  ?  61 

are  indeed  a  people  of  contrarieties,  and  our  need  of  recon¬ 
ciliation  is  consequcMtlij  the  greater.  The  words  which  follow 
apply  well  to  our  time  :  “  So  long  as  a  reconciliation  between 
our  religious  and  scientific  culture  is  not  attained  by  the 
greater  number  among  us,  that  is,  is  not  brought  about  in 
every  sphere  of  our  national  education,  in  churches  and  schools, 
in  our  teaching  and  life,  our  age  will  be  debilitated  by  this 
internal  opposition,  as  by  a  secret  ailment  which  threatens  our 
moral  and  spiritual  development  with  distortion  and  decay  ” 
(Gelzer).  And  all  this  is  specially  applicable  to  the  German 
people.  Its  many  internal  differences  will  never  be  truly 
adjusted  so  long  as  the  main  cause  of  dissension,  the  religious 
difference,  remains  ;  and  the  matter  still  stands  as  it  was  put 
by  a  well-known  historian  in  1851:  “  Any  one  who  desires 
to  have  a  German  empire  must,  in  the  first  place,  have  a 
united  and  firmly-established  German  Church :  German  history 
for  more  than  six  centuries  has  taught  this  lesson  1” 

But  for  this  very  reason,  the  work  of  reconcilement  is  our 
special  vocation.  It  is  certainly  the  problem  of  our  century, 
in  the  solution  of  which  all  are  bound  to  join ;  but  the 
People  of  contrarieties  ”  is  .called  upon  more  than  all  others 
to  do  this  for  itself  and  for  tlie  world  in  general.  It  is  fitted 
for  this  vocation  both  by  internal  gifts  and  also  by  its  past 
history.  Amid  all  its  weaknesses  and  faults,  the  Teutonic 
genius  more  than  any  other  combines  a  deep  religious  ten¬ 
dency  with  a  peculiar  power  of  speculative  thought ;  high 
moral  earnestness  with  the  deepest  and  most  compreliensive 
thirst  for  knowledge  ;  peculiar  energy  for  the  most  protracted 
and  profound  investigation,  with  humble  submission  to. what 
is  sacred  and  divine ;  an  honest  and  enduring  inspiration  for 
all  that  is  high  and  ideal,  with  peculiar  sobriety,  clearness, 
and  acuteness  of  criticism.  “The  ISTation  of  thinkers”  is 
evidently  at  the  same  time  a  nation  fitted  for  the  service  of 
Christ.  And  in  many  bitter  trials  it  has  maintained  its  public 
conscience  more  purely  than  has  been  the  case  witli  most  other 
nations,  and,  in  spite  of  all  mortifications,  has  “  never  bartered 
away  its  ideal.”  By  this  moral  attitude,  and  with  the  univer¬ 
sality  peculiar  to  it,  it  has  been  capable  of  containing  within 
itself  for  so  long  a  time,  and  even  up  to  the  present  day,  the 
above-mentioned  evenly-l)alanced  antitheses,  for  the  mere 


C2  TiIODEEN  CULTUEE  AND  CHEISTIANITY.  [LECT.  I. 

toleration  of  which  such  an  infinite  tension  and  spiritual  elas¬ 
ticity  is  requisite,  that  other  nations  would  long  ago  have 
broken  down  in  the  attempt.  It  is  this  mental  and  moral 
tendency  and  attitude  which  capacitates  the  German  people 
before  all  others  for  effecting  the  reconciliation  of  faith  and 
science.  , 

The  genius  of  Germany  has,  however,  already  shown  histori¬ 
cally  that  it  has  recognised,  and  lias  begun  to  fulfil,  this  its 
vocation.  When,  at  the  close  of  the  middle  ages,  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  the  degeneracy  of  the  Church,  culture  and  Chris¬ 
tianity  fell  into  a  state  of  antagonism,  it  was  the  mind  and 
conscience  of  the  Teutonic  races  which  sought  and  found  the 
right  way  to  unity.  Together  with  the  work  of  the  Eeforma- 
tion,  classical  studies  began  to  revive.  In  the  Eeformation 
we  have  Luther,  the  most  German  of  Germans,  the  man  of 
faith,  standing  side  by  side  and  iiaiid  in  hand  with  the  most 
profound  adept  in  classical  culture,  IMelancthon  the  Teacher 
of  Germany, — a  living  and  speaking  proof  how  little  faith  and 
genuine  science  contradict,  how  nobly  they  supplement  and 
further  one  another, — and  both  together  showing  to  the  world 
in  the  newly  acquired  gospel  the  way  to  escape  out  of  the 
profound  contradictions  of  the  time,  and  to  bring  Christian 
faith  once  more  into  harmony  wdth  knowledge  and  conscience. 

In  later  times  the  German  people  has  indeed  so  pownn- 
fully  furthered  the  unbelief  wdiich  it  received  from  others, 
that  it  bears  a  considerable  share  of  the  guilt  incurred  in  its 
e.vtension  at.  the  present  day.  For  a  long  time  past,  the 
breach  which  it  was  their  vocation  to  heal  has  been  deepened 
and  widened  by  them.  But,  however  deeply  entangled  in 
unbelief,  the  German  people  is  now  beginning  to  make  good 
the  wrong  committed  against  itself  and  others,  and  to  direct 
its  attention,  both  practically  and  scientifically,  to  the  great 
religious  task  incumbent  on  it.  German  inquirers  pre-emi¬ 
nently  have  followed  out  all  doubts  into  their  innermost 
grounds ;  and  just  as  they  liave  gone  into  them  the  more 
deeply,  they  have  the  more  recognised  the  absolute  irrefut¬ 
ableness  of  the  fundamental  articles  of  Christian  faith,  and 
shown  anew  to  the  world  that  belief  and  really  thorough 
culture  and  science  can  exist  together  in  the  noblest  union. 
And  if  in  the  future  the  breach  is  to  be  thoroughly  healed. 


LECT.  I.] 


CAN  THE  BREACH  BE  FILLED  UP? 


63 


recourse  must  be  bad  to  all  that  German  industry  and  German 
mental  labour  has  done,  and  is  still  doiug,  in  promoting  the 
reconciliation  of  faith  and  knowledcie.  In  these  dissensions 
we  have  suffered,  and  are  still  suffering,  not  merely  for  our¬ 
selves,  but,  in  a  measure,  for  all ;  and  some  day  others  will  be 
compelled  to  come  to  us — and  many  are  now  already  coming 
— to  ask  us  for  the  use  of  our  weapons,  and  for  the  fruits 
of  our  victory. 

As  yet,  this  victory  has  been  gained  for  a  small  number 
only.  The  greater  proportion  of  educated  persons  still  view 
the  Christian  faith  with  doubt  and  distrust.  But  must  we 
therefore  renounce  all  hope  that  this  yawning  breach  will  one 
day  be  filled  up  for  tlie  great  body  of  our  people  ?  I  think 
not.  During  the  war  of  liberation,  Christianity  and  German 
nationality  solemnized  an  alliance,  deficient  indeed  in  deptli 
and  clearness  (genuine  Christianity  being  still  obscured  by  the 
fog  of  rationalism),  but  from  which,  nevertheless,  proceeded  a 
new  religious  and  moral  impetus,  which  at  the  present  day  is 
still  operative  in  various  ways  in  our  National  Church.  Many 
brave  and  earnest  men  are  even  now  working  at  tlie  bridn-ino- 
over  of  this  great  gulf.  For  the  last  thirty  years,  in  spite  of 
all  hostilities,  a  truly  Christian  science  has  begun  victoriously 
to  lead  the  way :  by  new  and  deeper  exegetical  researches ;  b}' 
historical  investigation ;  by  pointing  out  the  remarkable  har¬ 
mony  existing  between  many  new  archeological,  ethnological, 
and  even  many  scientific  discoveries,  and  the  utterances  of 
Holy  Scripture,  it  has  vindicated  the  truth  of  the  latter,  and 
has  confirmed  tlie  faith  of  many  individuals.  In  tlie  pulpits 
of  by  far  the  greater  number  of  the  German  churches,  and  in 
the  theological  faculties  of  most  of  the  universities,  it  has  so 
completely  driven  unbelief  out  of  the  field,  that  the  latter  has 
been  compelled  to  retire  in  a  great  measure  into  the  divinity 
schools  of  adjacent  countries  (Switzerland,  France,  Holland, 
Hungary).  When  compared  with  these  and  other  countries,^ 
Germany  shows  in  various  ways  that  unbelief  has  a  greater 
tendency  to  insinuate  itself  into,  and  to  make  its  j)ermanent 
abode  among,  half-educated  rather  than  thoroughly  educated 
communities. 

A  great  portion  of  the  Church,  moreover,  has  already  turned 
away  from  fruitless  controversies,  and  addressed  itself  to  the 


G4  MODEEN  CULTUEE  A:sD  CIIEI&TIAXITY.  [lECT.  I. 

practicul  work  of  Home  and  Foreign  Missions,  so  as  to  exliibit 
to  the  world  by  dint  of  action  what  Christian  faith  and  Chris¬ 
tian  love  are  able  to  effect ;  thus  silencing  many  a  scoffer. 
The  commencement  of  a  new  apologetic  and  popular  Christian 
literature,  the  interest  of  the  people  in  Missions, — an  interest 
increasing  in  spite  of  all  invectives, — better  attendance  on 
the  services  of  the  Church,  the  highly  necessary  co-operation 
of  the  laity  in  Church  organization,  which  has  again  begun, 
are  all  most  significant  intimations  that  even  in  German 
society  CliristianUy  and  nationality  may  be  brought  to  a 
more  and  more  general  approximation.  AVe  will  not,  therefore, 
be  deprived  of  the  hope  that — ■ 

“  The  light  will  once  again  appear 
To  all  our  brethren,  pure  and  clear, 

Turning  in  penitence  and  love, 

To  the  One  Source  which  springs  above !  ” 

We  may  therefore  be  allowed,  in  view  of  these  phenomena, 
to  affirm  that,  our  Christianity  being  such  as  it  is,  so  deeply 
rooted  in  the  popular  life,  and  supported  by  an  earnest  and 
believing  science,  eliciting  great  respect  even  from  abroad, — 
with  an  intellectual  and  moral  power  whose  influence  per¬ 
vades  the  globe,— it  will  no  longer  do  to  pass  by  it  with  a 
supercilious  shrug;  the  irresistible  demand  is  laid  upon  every 
one  who  is  desirous  to  escape  the  reproach  of  indifference, 
superficiality,  or  onesided  partiality,  and  especially,  therefore, 
on  all  “  cultivated  persons,”  that  they  should  at  least  earnestly 
examine  these  claims. 

The  history  of  our  people,  both  in  ancient  and  modern 
times,  proclaims  the  fact  that  the  prosperity  of  its  future 
depends  on  the  energetic  prosecution  of  this  work  of  recon¬ 
ciliation  between  Christianity  and  culture.  From  the  era  of 
the  middle  ages,  when  our  great  German  emperors  appeared 
contemporaneously  with  the  erection  of  our  mighty  cathedrals, 
down  to  the  time  of  the  wars  of  liberation,  indeed  down  to 
the  present  day,  it  is  clearly  written  on  the  face  of  our  history 
that  the  periods  of  our  national  splendour  were  our  periods  of 
faith ;  that  apostasy  from  faith  renders  us  weak  and  despised ; 
return  to  it,  strong  and  invincible !  If  the  former  cost  us 
an  Austerlitz  and  a  Jena,  the  latter  gained  a  Leipsic  and  a 
Waterloo  !  Just  as  in  former  days,  when  Israel  apostatized 


LECT.  I.] 


CAN  THE  BREACH  BE  FILLED  UP 


65 


from  the  living  God,  it  fell  into  political  ignominy  and  bondage; 
so  have  we,  on  account  of  our  scientific  and  religious  vocation 
among  nations,  been  compelled  more  palpably  than  otliers  both 
to  feel  and  suffer  for  it  when  we  have  fallen  away  from  the 
faith  of  our  fathers,  and  have  become  a  prey  to  superstition 
and  unbelief.  To  any  one  who  has  eyes  to  see  it,  our  history 
will  everywhere  bring  clearly  before  him  the  fact  that  belief 
ill  truth  is  the  power  and  stronghold  of  our  people,  the  inward 
moving  spring  of  all  its  really  great  actions,  the  ultimate 
and  surest  means  of  protection  against  all  our  dangers  both 
from  within  and  without,  and  the  crown  of  glory  of  our 
noblest  heroes  both  in  peace  and  war.  And,  although  not  in 
like  measure,  still  in  a  similar  way,  the  history  of  other 
nations  confirms  the  fact  that  “  all  epochs  in  which  faith  pre¬ 
vailed  have  been  the  most  heart-stirring  and  fruitful,  both  as 
regards  contemporaries  and  posterity ;  whereas,  on  the  other 
hand,  all  epochs  in  which  unbelief  obtains  its  miserable 
triumphs,  even  when  they  boast  of  some  apparent  brilliancy, 
are  not  less  surely  doomed  to  speedy  oblivion.”  (Goethe, 
Ablmndlungm  ziim  ivcstostliclicn  Divan.) 

If,  in  the  recognition  of  these  facts,  parties  desire  to  be 
made  one  in  the  genuine  iidieritance  of  their  forefathers,  and 
on  the  ground  of  the  faith  which  includes  and  does  not  ex¬ 
clude  culture ;  if,  on  the  one  hand,  liberals  and  men  of  pro¬ 
gress,  now  so  commonly  unbelievers,  will  only  recognise  with 
the  ancient  statesman,  that  “  to  obey  God  is  freedom  ”  (Seneca), 
and  that  “  a  nation  that  dedres  to  he  free  must  helicve,  and  a 
nation  that  will  not  helieve  must  he  in  servitude;  that  only 
despotism  can  dispense  with  faith,  but  not  liberty,'”  if  they 
would  recognise  the  fact,  that  no  institution,  no  idea,  not  even 
the  humanitarianism  so  much  bepraised,  is  a  certain  guarantee 
for  the  preservation  of  freedom,  and  that  such  guarantee  is 
only  to  be  found  in  the  spirit  of  the  gospel ;  if  they  would 
recognise  the  fact,  that  the  bond  of  fellowship,  so  necessary 
between  the  various  classes  of  the  people  and  their  different 
stages  of  culture,  can  only  be  restored  by  means  of  religion, 
and  that,  consequently,  in  all  liheral  and  national  tendencies, 
resort  must  he  had  to  Christianity ;  and  if,  on  the  other  hand, 
their  opponents  would  be  willing  to  comprehend  that  Chris¬ 
tianity  is  not  intended  to  hinder  any  free  national  develop- 


(56 


MODEEX  CULTUEE  AND  CHEISTIANITY.  [lECT.  I. 


ment,  but  only  to  restrain  and  purify  it,  and  that  freedom 
does  not  binder  faith,  which  indeed  springs  up  most  vigorously 
in  the  free  air  of  liberty ;  if  both  parties  would  but  recognise 
the  fact,  that  their  interests  rightly  imder stood  do  not  sever,  hut 
recdly  finite  them,  and  in  this  recognition  would  hold  out  to 
one  another  a  helping  hand :  then  would  the  breach  which  now 
separates  us  be  already  healed,  and  the  main  cause  of  our 
present  paralysis  be  removed ;  no  longer  wordd  one  be  hinder¬ 
ing  another  in  the  reconstruction  of  Church  or  Commonwealth, 
all  would  joyoiisly  be  working  together;  blessing  and  salva¬ 
tion  would  again  descend  from  heaven ;  our  protracted  yearn¬ 
ings  would  be  satisfied,  our  hope  fulfilled,  and  seeking  first  the 
kingdom  of  God,  we  should  find  all  other  things  added  to  us  I 
And  so  at  last  would  come  the  time  of  which  one  sings ; 

“Take  down  thy  harp  from  the  willow-tree, 

Thon  nation  of  toil,  tlion  nation  of  gloom  | 

Out  of  scorn  and  of  cruel  misery 

Shall  eternal  golden  blessings  bloom  : — 

The  nations  of  the  ransomed 
yTth  joy  approach  Thy  shrine  ; 

Thyself  our  God’s  own  heirdom. 

And  all  for  ever  Thine  !  ” 

•  ••••• 

In  a  public  place  in  ancient  Eome,  there  once  opened,  in 
consequence  of  an  earthquake,  a  deep  chasm,  which  no  amount 
of  rubbish  could  fill  up.  The  soothsayers  were  consulted,  and 
answered,  that  “  the  most  precious  thing  in  Ifome  ”  .must  be 
cast  into  it.  This  was  interpreted  by  a  young  hero,  as  apply¬ 
ing  to  manly  energy  and  weapons ;  and  courageous  to  tlie  death 
and  folly  accoutred,  he  sprang  into  the  yawning  abyss,  which 
immediately  closed  over  him.  I,  too,  have  to  lead  you  on  to 
a  deep  gulf,  which  has  been  gradually  formed  by  all  kinds  of 
storms  and  earthquakes  in  Church  and  State,  Schools  and 
Science.  Nowhere  else  does  it  yawn  so  widely  as  among 
ourselves.  Much  has  been  already  cast  into  it,  but  it  will  jiot 
close.  Nor  do  I  believe  that  this  will  happen,  until  that 
wherein  we  are  strongest  shall  offer  itself  willingly  for  th» 
glorious  enterprise ;  until  German  science  and  German  faith, 
arrayed  in  their  respective  panoplies  of  intellect  and  prayer — 
the  former  clad  in  its  full  equipment  of  critical  aeuineTi  and 
the  sense  of  truth,  the  latter  in  all'the  might  derived  from  a 


LECT.  I.] 


CA]Sr  THE  BKEACH  BE  FILLED  UP  ? 


67 


heavenly  presence  and  communion— step  down  into  the  depth, 
and  there  begin  to  build.  No  single  man  or  generation  will 
complete  this  work.  It  will  be  the  work  of  many  champions 
and  of  many  years.  But  oh  might  it  be  granted  me  in  the 
present  lecture,  to  have  cast  into  the  gulf  at  least  one  stone ! 


68 


REASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[LECT.  IJ. 


SECOND  LECTUEE. 

REASON  AND  REVELATION. 

IN  tlie  great  conflict  between  faith  and  unbelief,  it  is 
always  the  idea  conceived  of  God  that  forms  the  inmost 
core  and  centre  of  every  question,  and  in  the  case  of  each 
individual  gives  norm  and  shape  to  the  whole  of  his  religion, 
his  theoretical  convictions,  and  his  practical  rules  of  conduct. 
He  who  firmly  holds  that  belief  in  the  triune  Deity,  which 
from  apostolic  times  has  been  recognised  as  constituting  the 
basis  of  our  Christian  profession,  has  no  longer  any  rational 
motive  for  impugning  any  essential  portion  of  Christian  truth, 
while  one  who  has  renounced  such  belief  might  find  it 
difficult  to  maintain  his  adherence  to  a  single  dogma.  Our 
entire  position  towards  Christianity  depends  from  first  to 
last  on  this,  whether  we  accept  the  scriptural  and  Christian 
idea  of  God  or  no. 

Hence  arises  the  necessity  for  our  considering  first  among 
modern  doubts  respecting  the  articles  of  Christian  faith,  those 
which  concern  the  fundamental  Christian  idea  of  God.  And 
here  starts  up  the  preliminary  question — Whence  is  our  know- 
ledge  of  God  derived  ?  Do  we  obtain  it  by  the  mere  exertion  of 
our  natural  faculties  of  reason  from  the  contemplation  of  the 
world  around  us  and  its  history,  and  of  our  own  inward  being  and 
conscience  ?  Are  the  foot-tracks  of  Deity  thus  laid  down,  and 
discoverable  by  us,  adequate  to  enable  us  to  form  a  just  con¬ 
ception  of  what  God  is,  and  of  the  problem  of  our  moral  and 
religious  being  ?  Or  do  we  need  for  this  purpose  a  super¬ 
natural  revelation  on  tlie  part  of  God  Himself,  as  to  His 
own  nature,  will,  and  modes  of  dealing  with  us,  such  as  is 


LECT.  II.] 


REASON  AND  REVELATION. 


69 


recorded  in  Holy  Scripture  ?  And  if  so,  what  relation  does 
the  Scripture  Eecord  bear  to  our  knowledge  of  God  obtained 
by  the  process  of  natural  reason  ?  Is  reason  in  accord  with 
revelation  or  not  ?  or  in  the  case  of  any  discrepancy  between 
them,  must  reaspn,  as  Deism  and  Eationalism  maintain,  take 
precedence  of  revelation  as  chief  judge  in  questions  of  religious 
truth,  so  that  nothing  is  to  be  received  on  the  testimony  of 
Scripture  except  that  which  is  capable  of  rational  demon¬ 
stration  ?  Or,  on  the  other  hand,  is  reason,  as  the  orthodox 
view  maintains,  to  be  subordinated  to  revelation  as  to  the 
highest  and  only  certain  source  of  divine  knowledge,  and  that 
by  which  the  intuitions  of  reason  must  be  shaped  and  de¬ 
veloped  ? 

Such  are  the  questions  with  which,  in  the  first  place,  we 
have  to  deal.  In  attempting  their  solution,  we  must  direct 
attention  first  to  the  rights,  nature,  and  limits  of  reason,  and 
to  the  witness  of  history  as  to  its  performances  in  compari¬ 
son  with  the  requirements  of  our  religious  nature,  and  more 
especially  with  reference  to  the  contributions  made  by  con¬ 
science  to  natural  theology.  Having  done  this,  we  must 
next  examine  the  inner  nature  and  laws  of  divine  revelation, 
and  attempt  to  ascertain  its  true  worth,  necessity,  possibility, 
and  recognisability  by  us,  so  as ,  in  the  last  place  to  draw 
conclusions  as  to  the  relation  in  which  the  one  stands  to  the 
other. 

Among  these  are  certainly  some  rather  dry  and  unattractive 
questions,  in  respect  of  which  we  must  arm  ourselves  with 
patience;  but  they  are  all  of  the  greatest  practical  importance. 
You  meet  a  thousand  times  in  life  wuth  those  who  in  dealing  with 
any  religious  question  make  at  once  their  appeal  to  reason,  and 
insist  on  forthwith  rejecting  aught  that  lies  beyond  its  sphere, 
without  however  being  able  to  render  any  clear  account  of  the 
nature  and  proper  limits  of  the  knowledge  thus  derived,  or  of 
the  relation  in  which  such  knowledTO  stands  to  the  relimous 

O  O 

needs  of  man.  I  would  invite  you,  therefore,  to  inquire  seri¬ 
ously  whether  such  persons  are  not  really  bowing  down  before 
an  idol  of  the  mind,  which,  while  itself  of  very  questionable 
worth,  demands  as  much  implicit  faith  from  its  worshippers  as 
divine  revelation  itsejf. 

We  shall  first,  therefore,  turn  our  attention  to 


70 


EEASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[lect.  II. 


I. - NATURAL  THEOLOGY,  OR  THE  KNOWLEDGE  OF  GOD  DERIVED 

FROM  NATURE  AND  EEASON. 

It  is  a  reproach  not  seldom  laid  upon  the  faith  of  Christians 
by  those  who  have  ever  on  their  lips — - 

“  Science  and  Reason  Mgliest  powers  in  man,” — 

that  it  fails  to  recognise  the  rights  and  powers  of  reason  and 
conscience  as  organs  of  divine  knowledge,  or  at  least  does  so 
very  imperfectly ;  that  it  treats  reason  as  an  unformed,  ■  sickly 
child,  and,  subjecting  it  to  an  unbearable  yoke,  deprives  it,  in 
that  crushed  and  slavish  condition,  of  any  healthy  use  of  its 
faculties.  Let  us  see  .whether  there  be  any  truth  in  this 
allegation.  * 

And  first  as  to  the  prerogatives  which  rightly  belong  to 
reason,  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  its  incapacity  has  often 
been  so  grossly  exaggerated  by  certain  orthodox  writers  as  to 
give  some  colour  to  this  accusation.  But  here  a  distinetion 
must  be  made  between  the  exaggerations  of  individuals  and  the 
true  doctrine  of  the  Church  and  Holy  Scripture.  So  little  does 
the  Bible  demand  a  mere  blind  faith,  that  on  the  contrary  it 
requires  a  spirit  of  examination  in  all  things  (1  Thess.  v.  21 ; 

1  Cor.  X.  15  ;  1  Johniv.  1  ff.).  It  often  exhorts  us  to  follow 
the  Divine  footsteps  in  the  works  of  creation  (Ps.  civ. ;  Is.  xl. 

2  6  ciJ  ^9assm)  ;  it  affirms  it  to  be  the  duty  of  all  men,  even  of 
the  heathen,  to  seek  the  Lord  if  haply  they  might  feel  after  Him, 
and  find  Him  ;  because  He  is  not  far  from  any  one  of  us,  and  we 
also  are  His  offspring  (Acts  xvii.  27-29,  xiv.  17);  it  recog¬ 
nises  the  existence  in  man  of  a  spiritual  eye,  by  means  of 
which  he  obtains  and  possesses  light  in  respect  to  his  relation 
to  God  (Matt.  vi.  22,  23  ;  Luke  xi.  34-36);  and  it  ascribes 
to  the  very  heathen,  and  consequently  to  the  human  intellect 
p)er  se,  independently  of  the  revelation  contained  in  Scripture, 
a  capacity  for  obtaining  from  creation  and  from  conscience  a 
certain  amount  of  real  knowledge  as  to  the  nature  and  will  of 
God.  On  this  point  I  would  merely  call  your  attention  to 
Bom.  i.  19,  20  :  that  which  may  be  knoum  of  God  is  manifest 
in  them  (the  Gentiles) ;  for  God  (Himself)  hath  manifested  it  to 
them ;  since  from  the  creation  of  the  loorld  His  invisible  attributes 
have  through  His  works  suffered  themselves  to  be  seen  in  the  con- 


LECT.  11.  ] 


NiVTURA-L  THEOLOGY 


71 


temijlation  of  reason,  even  His  eternal  'power  and  Godhead ;  so 
that  they  are  without  excuse; — and  to  Eom.  ii.  14,  15  (comp. 
Eom.  i.  32)  :  these,  having  not  the  law  (once  given  to  Israel),  are 
unto  themselves  a  law;  as  shoiving  the  worh  of  the  law  (the 
conduct  required  by  the  law  and  will  of  God)  written  in 
their  hearts  (as  for  Israel  it  was  written  on  the  tables  of  stone), 
their  conscience  hearing  witness  to  it,  etc. 

There  is,  therefore,  according  to  Scripture,  first,  a  natural 
knowledge  of  God  which,  since  the  creation,  has  been  obtain¬ 
able  by  man  through  a  rational  contemplation  of  His  works, 
and  which  so  obtrudes  itself  on  man  as  to  deprive  of  all  means 
of  exculpation  those  who  reject  it.  Just  as  the  outer  world 
presents  itself  to  the  senses  for  external  recognition,  so  God  in 
and  by  the  world  presents  Himself  to  reason  for  internal  recog¬ 
nition.  And  this  doctrine  of  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  is  not 
only  almost  literally  repeated  in  so  .many  words  by  Gentile 
philosophers, — as  e.g.  by  Aristotle  {de  Mundo,  c.  6) :  “  Although 
invisible  to  every  mortal  nature,  God  is  yet  manifested  by  His 
works;”  and  by  Cicero  {Tusc.  i.  29) :  “  Thou  seest  not  God,  and 
yet  thou  knowest  Him  from  His  works,'”- — but  also  has  its 
truth  practically  demonstrated  by  the  various  forms  of  religion, 
however  imperfect,  of  all  heathen  nations.^  And  so  again  as  to 
conscience :  the  law  and  will  of  God  respecting  human  conduct, 
inanifestincT  itself  as  a  moral  law  and  divine  revelation  in  the 

o 

hearts  of  all  men,  was  equally  well  known  to  those  who  spoke 
of  the  conscience  as,  on  the  one  hand,  “  irrefragable  and  im¬ 
mutable,  recompensing  every  good  action,”  and  on  the  other, 
as  “  arrows  of  the  gods  penetrating  the  heart  of  the  ungodly  ” 
(Cicero),  who  “  night  and  day  bear  about  within,  their  own 
accuser  ”  (Juvenal) ;  and  again,  as  “  a  holy  spirit  settled  in  the 
inmost  heart  and  watching  over  all  actions,  whether  good  or 
evil  ”  (Seneca  and  the  Laws  of  Menu). 

It  is  then  in  accordance  with  the  general  conviction  among 
all  nations  that  Holy  Scripture  has  thus  assigned  to  reason  a 
definite  province  in  the  domain  of  theology ;  a  capacity,  nay,  an 
inward  necessity  for  independent  search  after  God,  and  the 
traces  of  His  presence  both  in  the  material  world  without  and 
the  spiritual  world  within.  The  iinpulse  towards  and  .capacity 

’  On  tliis  and  what  follows,  comp.  Delitzsch’s  excellent  work,  System  dcT 
Ckristl.  Apologetik,  Leipzig  1869,  p.  63  If. 


72 


REASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[lect.  II. 


for  tins  searcli  is  the  divine  patent  of  nobility  in  the  human 
spirit,  and  the  Christian  must  not  forego  his  inalienable  right 
to  claim  it. 

Even  the  Eeformers,  who  so  strongly  (especially  Luther) 
insisted  at  times  on  the  incapacity  of  natural  reason,  by  no 
means  called  this  right  in  question.  So,  for  instance,  Luther 
himself  in  the  Disputation  vom  Alenschm  :  “  It  is  a  settled  point 
that  reason  is  amoncj  all  things  in  the  life  of  man  the  chiefest 
and  the  best,  nay,  something  divine — a  sun,  and  as  it  were  a  god 
placed  over  the  government  of  things  in  this  life.  And  this 
glory  God  has  not  withdrawn  from  reason  since  the  Fall,  but 
rather  confirmed  her  in  it.”  And  in  another  place  (the  tract 
Von  den  Klostergeliibden)  he  also  writes  :  “  Whatever  is  opposed 
to  reason  is  certainly  much  more  opposed  to  God.  How 
should  not  that  be  contrary  to  truth  divine  which  is  opposed 
to  human  truth  and  ri^ht  reason  ?  ”  It  cannot  therefore  be 
maintained  that  the  Christian  Church  thinks  lightly  of 
reason. 

But  still  the  question  remains,  hov/  far  the  province  of 
reason  extends.  What  are  the  limitations  of  that  knowledge 
of  which  reason  is  the  source  ?  Or  is  there  any  such  know¬ 
ledge  at  all  ?  To  elucidate  this  question,  we  must  first  come  to 
some  understanding  in  respect  to  the  difficult  preliminary 
question,  variously  answered  by  the  profoundest  thinkers  both 
in  ancient  and  modern  times,  as  to  the  nature  and  idea  of 
reason  itself.  The  attempt  has  constantly  been  made  to 
elucidate  the  idea  of  reason  by  comparison  or  contrast  with 
that  of  the  understanding.  But  here  we  can  hardly  rest  satis¬ 
fied  with  Kant’s  mode  of  distimruishinfr  the  two,  when  he 
makes  the  understanding  to  be  the  faculty  which  contains  the 
categories  or  logical  forms  of  thought  and  judgment,  and  reason 
the  faculty  containing  ideas  or  forms  of  conclusion.  The  dis¬ 
tinction  between  these  two  activities  of  thought  seems  to  us 
much  too  subtle  for  us  to  assign  them  to  t’.vo  distinct  mental 
faculties.  But  the  other  distinction,  which  regards  the  under- 
standing  as  the  organ  of  logical  notions,  and  reason  that  of 
ideas,  is  probably  correct,  and  is  generally  accepted.  The 
former  gathers  from  the  outer  world  of  sense  perceptions  and 
presentments,  which  it  proceeds  to  combine  in  general  cate¬ 
gories.  The  latter  pursues  the  material  presented  to  it  by  the 


LECT.  II.] 


NATURAL  THEOLOGY. 


^  O 

i  O 


senses  and  the  understanding  to  its  ultimate  basis,  in  order,  if 
possible,  to  apprehend  it  in  its  innermost  ground  and  unity  of 
being.  Just  then  as  notions  are  products  of  formal  logical 
processes  of  thought,  so  are  ideas  the  products  of  “  real  radical 
apprehension.”  Kant,  however,  in  assuming  that  (excepting 
•  only  the  appetitive  faculty  with  its  categorical  imperative)  there 
is  no  proof  of  there  being  any  real  existence  corresponding  to 
the  ideas  of  reason,  seems  to  have  overlooked  the  fact  that  the 
very  (German)  word  Vernelimen  (perceive  or  apprehend),  from 
which  Vernunft  (reason)  is  derived,  points  to  something  real 
and  actual,  which  presents  itself  to  the  apprehension  of  the 
reason ;  and  that  such  apprehension  may  therefore  be  like  the 
contemplation  of  the  world  of  sense  by  the  understanding,  a 
genuine  source  of  experimental  certainty.  This  “  real  some¬ 
thing”  is  the  Supersensuous.  Jacobi,  therefore,  was  right  in 
vindicating  against  Kant  the  true  significance  of  the  idea¬ 
constructing  activity  of  reason,  and  defining  it  as  the  taculty 
which  apprehends  the  supersensuous.  Only,  we  must  re¬ 
member,  that  the  activities  of  reason  are  not  exclusively 
directed  towards  the  supersensuous,  but  in  general  towards  the 
central  unity  and  essence  of  the  object  contemplated :  the  last 
basis  or  ground  of  each  phenomenon.  This  impulse  to  seek 
after  and  discover  the  substantial  unity  in  everything  which 
is  made  an  object  of  thought  is  characteristic  of  all  the  opera¬ 
tions  of  this  faculty.  It  is  at  once  ancdytical,  resolving 
phenomena  into  their  ultimate  grounds,  and  synthetical,  com¬ 
bining  these  grounds  so  discovered  into  ideal  unities. 

And  now,  supposing  reason  by  a  like  impulse  to  endeavour 
to  combine  all  these  ideas  into  one  yet  deeper  absolute  idea, 
and  to  pursue  in  thought  the  ultimate  ground  of  all  being,  i.c. 
God ;  can  it  (we  must  ask)  by  its  own  innate  power,  and 
tlirough  contemplation  of  the  external  world  and  the  witness 
of  conscience,  arrive  at  such  knowledge  and  apprehension  as  to 
be  able  permanently  to  satisfy  man's  religious  needs  ?  Or  must 
it  for  that  end  be  stimulated  and  guided  in  its  search  after  the 
only  One  and  the  True  by  supernatural  revelations  ? 

These  questions  bring  us  to  the  great  fundamental  antithesis 
between  Holy  Scripture  and  modern  philosophy.  Whereas 
Kant  himself  frankly  denied  the  existence  in  reason  of  any 
power  to  arrive  at  certain  knowledge  in  divine  things,  his 


74 


EEASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[lect.  II. 


successors  maintained  lier  absolute  authority  even  in  the  highest 
sphere.  Eeason,  they  asserted,  was  able  o^f  herself,  even  with¬ 
out  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  the  external  universe  and  the 
witness  of  history,  and  a  fortiori  without  the  aid  of  revelation 
or  Scripture,  to  solve  by  her  own  unaided  faculties  the  world’s 
enigma;  to  penetrate  to  the  ground  of  all  being,  i.e.  God 
Himself ;  and  so  to  answer  all  moral  and  religious  questions  in 
respect  to  man’s  ultimate  destiny  and  purpose.  In  this  way 
all  limitations  being  removed,  the  power  of  reason  to  attain 
to  the  knowledge  of  God  was  asserted  in  the  most  absolute 
terms. 

Scripture,  on  the  contrary,  teaches  thus  :  Eeason,  like  ex^ery 
other  faculty  and  every  other  talent,  needs  culture  and  edu¬ 
cation,  such  as  God  from  the  beginning  has  vouchsafed  it; 
first,  through  the  medium  of  the  outer  world  (Gen.  i.  28-30, 
ii.  15,  19,  20);  and,  secondly,  by  the  imposition  of  a  moral 
commandment.  By  the  transgression  of  the  latter,  mankind 
entered  on  a  perverted  course  of  development,  a  mis-oul- 
ture ;  so  that  their  moral,  and  thereby  also  their,  intellectual 
faculties,  experienced  such  a  weakening  and  disturbance,  that 
henceforth,  for  the  knowledge  of  truth  and  of  salvation,  a  special 
revelation  of  God  to  man  became  infinitely  more  a  necessity 
than  before ;  just  as  a  sick  child  needs  help  much  more  than  a 
healthy  one  (Matt.  vi.  22,  23;  John  ix.  39-41).  It' is  true, 
as  we  have  been  previously  told  by  St.  Paul,  that  reason,  even 
in  its  present  condition,  possesses  the  power  of  apprehending 
in  the  conscience  something  of  God ;  but  this  fragmentary 
natural  knowledge  of  God  has  not  had  the  practical  effect 
of  preventing  those  deprived  of  further  supernatural  revela¬ 
tion,  that  is,  the  heathen,  from  fundamental  mistakes  as  to 
their  moral  and  religious  duty,  and  from  seeking  God  in  a 
perverted  way  (cf.  Eom.  i.  21-32).  According  to  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  therefore,  natural  reason  is  insufficient  for  obtaining  a 
right  hnoivledge  of  God  ;  and  a  supernatural  revelation  of  the 
nature  and  will  of  God  is  absolutely  necessary  as  a  light  to 
the  darkened  reason  and  the  weakened  conscience,  to  prevent 
their  falling  into  various  aberrations. 

We  have  here  presented  to  us  yet  another  important 
difference,  which  is  closely  connected  with  the  previous  one. 
Scripture  distinguishes  between  reason  in  itself,  as  it  was  in- 


LECT.  IL] 


KATUEAL  THEOLOGY. 


75 


tended  to  be,  and  its  present  condition,  as  disturbed  by  sin. 
Philosophy  and  rationalism  recognise  no  substantial  import¬ 
ance  in  this  distinction.  They  pronounce  reason  as  it  now  is, 
adequate  for  obtaining  a  speculative  and  religious  knowledge 
of  God,  and  therefore  subject  all  dogmas  to  its  judgment; 
whereas  Scripture  not  only  lays  down  the  necessity  of  the 
submission  of  finite  reason  to  the  infinite,  but  also  pronounces 
the  necessity  of  its  enlightenment  and  correction  by  means  of 
revelation  {e.g.  Ps.  xviii.  29  ;  Isa.  xxv.  7,  liii.  6  ;  Luke  ii.  32  ; 
John  i.  9  ;  Eph.  i;  17,  18,  et  al). 

To  this  must  be  added,  as  a  further  difference,  that  philo¬ 
sophy  assumes  the  absolute  cognizability  of  God,  and  believes 
itself  able  to  penetrate  to  the  ultimate  ground  of  things,  and 
to  place  itself  in  the  full  possession  of  all  truth;  whereas 
Scripture  teaches,  God  dwelleth  in  a  light  that  no  man  can 
approach  unto ;  whom  no  man  hath  seen  nor  can  see.”  It 
maintains,  therefore,  only  a  partial  cognizability  of  God ; 
teaching  that  in  this  life,  even  with  the  aid  of  revelation,  we 
can  attain  only  to  a  knowing  in  part  ”  in  divine  things,  and 
not  to  anything  whole  and  complete.  According  to  Scripture, 
therefore,  this  rational  knowledge  has  defined  limits,  drawn 
partly  by  the  nature  of  reason  itself,  partly  by  the  deteriorat¬ 
ing  influence  of  sin,  and  again  by  the  infinite  nature  of  the 
Object ;  philosophy,  on  the  contrary,  aims  at  demolishing  all 
these  restraining  limits,  and  looks  upon  reason  as  self-suffic¬ 
ing  for  the  recognition  of  truth.  For  which  party  shall  we 
decide  ? 

In  order  to  support  these  claims  of  reason,  some  would 
ascribe  to  it  innate  ideas  existing  anterior  to  all  experience — 
by  means  of  which  it  can  generate  conceptions  of  every  kind 
of  existence.  This  view  has  recently  and  with  good  right  been 
abandoned.  It  has  been  shown  that  there  is,  psychologically 
considered,  nothing  contained  in  reason  which  could  become 
the  property  of  man  in  any  other  way  than  by  means  of 
experience ;  ^  that  reason  is  purely  a  mental  faculty,  without 
concrete  contents ;  and  that  the  logical  and  mathematical  laAvs 
Avhich  we  must  assume  to  exist  for  all  minds  with  which  we 
hold  intercourse,  do  not  extend  further  than  the  production  of 

^  Cf.  also  Lotze,  Medicinische  Psyclioloyie,  p.  474  fF.,  and  Krauss  and 
Dclitzscli,  ut  supra. 


76 


KEASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[lect.  1L 


general  forms  of  thought.  It  has  been  recognised  that  the 
hu?nan  mind  is  so  constituted,  that  whenever  it  is  set  in 
action  certain  ideas  develope  themselves,  to  which  it  is  from 
its  nature  predisposed ;  but  that  every  concrete  truth  so 
arrived  at  is  not  a  product  of  reason  as  an  abstract  faculty, 
but  a  result  of  its  contact  with  the  outward  world,  and  con¬ 
sequently  a  product  of  the  individual  reason  practically  de¬ 
veloped. 

This  preliminary  question  is  therefore  already  decided,  on 
philosophical  grounds,  against  the  claims  of  the  older  and  later 
idealistic  philosophy. 

For  our  purpose  we  need  not  enter  further  into  this  ques¬ 
tion,  but  merely  ask,  tvliethcr  reason  is  to  he  regarded  as  a 
material  source  of  knowledge,  or  as  a  mere  faculty  1  Evidently 
the  latter,  and  the  former  only  so  far  as,  from  the  spiritual 
powers  and  qualities  of  human  nature,  a  retrospective  con¬ 
clusion  as  to  the  divine  Archetype  is  allowable  and  even 
necessary.  But  in  general  it  must  be  regarded  as  a  mere 
faculty  of  perception,  by  which  the  divine  and  supersensuous 
element  in  things  is  discerned.  Is  not  reason  essentially  a 
receptive  organ,  whose  function  is  to  hear,  to  learn,  and  to 
embrace  truths  which  come  to  it  either  from  without  or  from 
above  ?  Is  it  not,  therefore,  naturally  predisposed  to  receive 
revelations,  the  word  being  taken  in  the  most  general  sense  ? 
If  then,  according  to  the  later  idealistic  philosophy,  reason 
assumes  to  be  able  to  comprehend  by  means  of  its  innate 
notions  and  ideas  the  divine  ground  of  all  things,  and  to  solve 
the  enigma  of  the  universe  and  its  destinies,  is  it  claiming 
more  than  to  comprehend  itself,  and  solve  its  own  self-con¬ 
stituted  enigmas  ?  And  is  not  this  an  internal  contradiction  ? 
With  equal  truth  and  simplicity  it  has  been  objected  against 
these  claims :  Philosophy  has  ever  desired  to  solve  the  ques¬ 
tions,  What  am  I?  Whence  am  I?  and.  Whither  am  I  and  the 
world  going  ?  But  who  is  it  puts  these  questions  ?  Peason. 
But  reason,  we  are  told,  is  able  to  answer  them.  Is  it  able  ? 
Would  it  persist  in  ashing  questions  of  which  it  knew  the 
answer  ?  If  reason,  the  organ  of  perception,  refuses  to 
ccive,  it  becomes  thereby  itself  irrational. 

But  now  arises  a  further  question,  whether  reason,  in  order 
to  attain  to  a  right  knowledge  in  divine  things,  has  to  exercise 


LECT.  II.] 


NATUEAL  THEOLOGY. 


•77 


its  perceptive  function  merely  on  the  world  without  and 
conscience  within — God’s  natural  revelation  of  Himself, — 
or  whether  a  supernatural  revelation  of  God  is  also  neces¬ 
sary  ?  On  these  points,  let  the  impartial  judgment  of  history 
decide.  Let  us  inquire  of  the  history  of  religion  and  the 
history  of  philosophy  how  far  natural  reason  apart  from  reve¬ 
lation  has  succeeded  in  its  efforts.  First,  let  us  turn  to  those 
races  ot  classical  antiquity  who  were  destitute  of  a  special 
revelation.  God  suffered  them  “to  follow  their  own  ways,” 
hut  He  gave  them  the  most  intelligent  minds,  surrounded 
them  with  the  noblest  objects  of  nature,  gave  them  a  history 
full  of  the  most  illustrious  proofs  that  He  judges  with  a  holy 
arm,  and  a  period  of  several  thousand  years  in  which  “they 
should  seek  the  Lord,  if  haply  they  might  feel  after  Him  and 
find  Him.”  With  all  these  advantages,  what  knowledge  of 
God  did  they  attain  to  ?  To  an  obscure  presentiment,  break- 
in(T  forth  here  and  there,  but  not  to  the  clear  knowledge,  much 
less  to  the  practical  assertion  of  the  simplest  truth  of  all, 
namely,  that  God  is  and  can  be  only  07ie  !  Neither  in  ancient 
nor  in  modern  times  has  it  been  possible  to  find  in  the  whole 
earth  a  nation  which,  without  the  revelation  recorded  in  Scrip¬ 
ture,  and  by  its  own  powers  of  thought,  has  arrived  at  definite 
belief  in  one  living  personal  God  !  Perhaps  you  will  adduce 
India  against  me.  “  One  God,  and  beside  Him  none  other  ” 
{Ek  Brumho,  dittyo  naahti),  is  an  utterance  which  is  in  fact, 
even  in  the  present  day,  to  be  heard  from  the  lips  of  every 
Brahmin.  Brahminism,  at  least  in  its  most  ancient  elements, 
shows  clear  traces  of  a  monotheism.  But  if  even  the  thoughts 
of  the  old  Hindoos  did  sometimes  rise  from  the  contemplation 
of  various  deified  natural  phenomena,  such  as  the  dawn,  the 
lightnings,  and  the  storms,  etc.,  to  that  of  the  one  primal  cause 
of  all  things,  this  cause  was  regarded  not  as  the  One  God,  but 
as  an  Impersonal  undefined  existence,  of  which  all  that  could 
be  said  was,  that  it  is  not  what  it  is ;  with  which,  therefore, 
any  personal  communion  in  prayer  would  be  impossible. 
Monotheism  in  this  case  was  attained  by  the  surrender  of  the 
living  character'  and  personality  of  God,  and  so  was  essentially 
pantheistic;  whilst  the  popular  view,  adhering  to  belief  in 
personifications  of  divine  power,  lost  thereby  the  divine  unity 
in  millions  of  gods  derived  from  nature.  The  same  thing 


78 


REASON  AND  HEVELATION. 


[lect.  II. 


occurred  subsequently  in  Greece ;  ^  and  Mahomet  himself  ar¬ 
rived  at  monotheism,  not  by  means  of  his  own  reason,  but 
through  the  influence  of  Judaism  and  Christianity. 

]\Ioreover,  notwithstanding  all  the  witness  of  conscience  and 
history,  the  reason  of  the  heathen  world,  when  left  to  itself, 
never  attained  to  those  other  fundamental  truths,  that  God  is 
and  must  be  an  absolutely  good  and  holy  being.  It  occasionally 
assigned  to  its  heaven  its  own  human  beauty,  but  with  it 
also  its  human  shame.  The  gods  of  even  the  most  cultivated 
heathen,  Greeks,  Eomans,  Hindoos,  etc.,  suffer  under  the  very 
same  moral  infirmities,  indeed  gross  vices,  as  men.  Truly, 
reason  cannot  boast  much  of  her  performances  in  a  religious 
point  of  view ;  for  can  any  genuine,  moral,  and  religious 
knowledge  of  God  be  imagined,  devoid  of  the  two  fundamental 
truths  above-named  ?  Are  we  then  to  conclude  from  this  that 
revelation  is,  or  is  not  needed  as  a  guide  to  erring  reason  ?  But 
let  us  not  be  too  precipitate ! 

The  objection  might  be  urged,  that  the  Greek  philosophers, 
for  instance,  did  not  share  in  the  popular  conceptipns  con¬ 
cerning  the  gods.  This  is  quite  correct.  Some  of  them  have 
emphatically  opposed  those  immoral  conceptions,  and  so  ap¬ 
proached  nearer  to  the  idea  of  monotheism.  But  not  one  com¬ 
pletely  attained  to  this  idea.  For  them,  the  Divine  Being  was 
always  losing  Himself  in  nature,  or  some  general  idea.  Even 
Plato  did  not  make  his  way  up  to  the  idea  of  a  divine,  self- 
conscious,  personal  Being  ;  nor  ever  distinctly  propounded  the 
question  of  the  personality  of  God.  It  is  true  that  Aristotle 
maintained  more  definitely  than  I’lato  that  the  Deity  must  be 
a  personal  Being.  But  even  for  him,  it  was  not  an  absolute, 
free,  creative  power,  but  one  limited  by  primordial  matter  ; 
not  the  world’s  Creator,  but  only  One  who  gave  shape  to  the 
rude  material,  and  so  not  truly  absolute. 

But  now  let  us  look  more  closely  into  the  history  of  philo¬ 
sophy  in  general,  and  question  the  results  of  reason’s  efforts 
extending  over  thousands  of  years.  Where  are  they  ?  I  could 
call  your  attention  to  many  an  honest  confession  on  the  part 
of  philosophers, — to  the  complaint  of  Plato  how  hard  it  is 
to  discover  the  Father  of  the  Universe  ;  to  the  utterances  of 

*  Cf.  also  Gess  and  Riggenbach,  ApoIogeHfche  Beitrdge,  p.  50  If.,  and  Sup¬ 
plement  No.  9. 


LECT.  II.] 


NATURAL  THEOLOGY. 


V9 


Socrates,  that  he  held  it  to  be  the  greatest  happiness  to  know 
the  will  of  the  gods,  hut  did  not  believe  this  could  be  dis¬ 
covered  by  the  conclusions  of  reason,  and  therefore  recom¬ 
mended  an  appeal  to  the  science  of  divination, — utterances 
which  reveal  to  us  what  a  profound  longing  after  some  special, 
divine  revelation  existed  in  the  greatest  philosophers  of  anti¬ 
quity, — or  to  some  of  the  impressive  songs  of  the  Indian 
Fdgveda,  in  which  the  longing  for  a  knowledge  of  the  original 
source  of  life,  and  the  pain  of  uncertainty  on  the  part  of  the 
seeker,  is  expressed  in  the  ever-recurring  refrain, — 

“  Who  is  the  God  to  whom  our  gifts  belong  ?” 

or  to  the  way  in  which  hichte,  after  first  combating  revelation, 
confessed  later  on  that  reason  stood  in  need  of  its  assistance  : 
“  A  Higher  Being  undertook  the  charge  of  the  first  members  of 
our  race,  just  as  an  old  and  venerable  document  containing  the 
deepest  and  sublimest  truths,  represents  Him  to  have  done ; 
and  to  this  testimony  all  philosophy  must  revert  in  the  endd 

Instead  of  further  calling  your  attention  to  all  this,  I 
would  only  point  out  to  you  a  single  noteworthy  matter  of 
fact,  that  up  to  the  present  day,  no  one  has  been  able  to 
show  to  the  world  what  the  outcome  of  so  long-continued 
a  process  of  thought  on  the  part  of  so  many  minds,  and  the 
certain  gain  in  respect  to  moral  and  religious  knowledge, 
actually  amount  to ;  in  short,  what  the  generally  achrvowlcdged 
results  of  philosophy  are.  In  other  sciences,  after  some  time, 
certain  truths  can  be  collected  as  fixed  results,  from  which 
advances  can  be  made  to  further  investigations.  Why,  then, 
has  no  one  succeeded  in  finding  and  establishing  such  results 
of  the  long  process  of  philosophical  developments  ?  (Bor  what 
Schelling  attempted  in  his  Positive  Philosophy  remained  an 
attempt  which  received  only  partial  acceptance  ;  and  all  he 
did  beyond  this  was  founded  on  the  Christian  view  of  things, 
and  so  became,  what  we  are  not  here  concerned  with,  a  Philo¬ 
sophy  of  Eevelation.”)  Whence  arises  this  surprising  pheno¬ 
menon  ?  Simply  from  the  fact,  that  philosophy  has  arrived  at 
no  definite  results  in  theology  properly  so  called,  and  never  laid 
down  any  principle  as  to  the  nature  of  God,  which  has  not  in  its 
turn  been  assailed  and  upset. 

In  saying  all  this,  it  is  not  our  intention  to  deny  absolutely 


80 


REASON  AND  llEVELATION. 


[lect.  II. 


tlie  value  of  philosophy.  The  present  generation,  intoxicated 
by  triumphs  in  the  domain  of  natural  science,  must  be  si;m- 
moned  to  rather  than  deterred  from  the  study  of  philosophy 
(but  it  should  be  a  thorough  study).  Most  of  the  sciences,  and 
theology  above  all,  have  very  much  to  thank  it  for;  without 
philosophy  they  would  ^  not  be  what  they  now  are.  But  we 
maintain  that  no  philosophy,  which  entirely  rejected  the  aid 
of  revelation,  and  sought  to  comprehend  the  world  and  God 
by  mere  efforts  of  reason,  ever  succeeded  in  attaining  to  any 
positive,  lasting  results.  From  Thales  and  Pythagoras,  onward 
to  Hegel  and  Herbart,  not  only  has  one  system  taken  the 
place  in  due  time  of  another,  but  also  by  its  criticism  has 
demolished  the  earlier  one.  In  criticism  and  in  negation, 
then,  philosophy  has  made  mighty  strides ;  men  have  grown 
wiser  in  pulling  down,  but  not  in  building  up.  The  former  is 
no  doubt  much  the  easier  of  the  two.  Down  to  our  time, 
philosophers  have  come  to  no  agreement  even  as  to  the  basis 
from  which  philosophical  speculation  has  to  proceed  ;  whether 
from  some  general  principle  or  idea,  or  from  matter ;  whether 
from  the  idea  of  pure  being,  or  from  human  consciousness,  etc. ; 
—they  are  not  yet  agreed  as  to  the  relation  between  tlie  real 
and  the  ideal,  whether  the  former  or  the  latter  is  that  which 
truly  is  ; — not  yet  agreed  as  to  the  idea  and  nature  of  God  and 
His  relation  to  the  world,  nor  as  to  that  of  man,  his  reason, 
and  his  spirit ; — they  are  not  yet  agreed  as  to  the  relation 
existing  between  body,  soul,  and  spirit ;  nor  as  to  our  freedom 
of  will  and  our  accountability ;  nor,  in  short,  as  to  any  one 
fundamental  question  in  speculative  knowledge,  morals,  or 
religion.  In  whatever  direction  we  turn,  we  find  ourselves 
confronted  by  “  open  questions,”  unsolved  problems,  and  views 
either  diametrically  opposed  or  importantly  divergent. 

We  may  therefore  justly  affirm,  that  philosophy  in  itself,  i.e. 
abstract  rational  speculation,  has  not  yet  attained  to  positive 
results.  When,  as  in  modern  times,  it  has  pretended,  without 
the  guidance  of  experience,  and  by  means  of  mere  reflection, 
to  attain  to  some  positive  result,  and  to  construct  reality  out 
of  its  own  ideas,  the  results  have  always  had  to  be  corrected 
by  experience,  and  not  seldom  laid  themselves  open  to  ridicule 
or  contempt.  Hegel,  for  instance,  believed  that  he  had  philo¬ 
sophically  proved  that  there  could  not  be  more  than  eleven 


LECT.  II.] 


NATURAL  THEOLOGY. 


81 


planets  ;  and  in  liis  time  there  were  not  more  than  eleven 
Imown.  Subsequently,  however,  more  exact  astronomical  in¬ 
vestigation  has  added  several  dozens  to  this  number. 

If,  then,  reason  without  experience  thus  fares  in  the  pro¬ 
vince  of  nature,  will  it  not  meet  with  a  similar  fate,  when, 
without  the  aid  of  revelation,  it  seeks  to  attain  to  a  real  know¬ 
ledge  of  God,  and  to  positive  religious  truth  ?  Is  not  the 
Greek  poet  right  when  he  says: 

“  Except  the  gods  themselves  to  thee  unveil, 

Search  as  thou  wilt  the  world,  thou  seek’st  in  vain  ”  ? 

In  fact,  no  great  objection  can  be  raised,  if,  in  opposition 
to  this  boundless  and  yet  ever  changing  assumption  of  reason, 
Christianity  steps  in  and  says :  Philosophy  is  condemned  by 
its  owm  history :  always  imagining  that  in  some  particular 
system  it  has  arrived  at  a  conclusion ;  whilst  nevertheless 
reason,  both  in  individuals  and  in  the  whole  race  of  man,  is 
subjected  to  a  continuous  process  of  development ;  it  is  ever 
falling  into  the  error  of  looking  upon  reason  as  absolutely  free, 
and  failing  to  recognise  the  disturbing  influence  of  sin.  No 
wonder,  then,  if,  with  these  defects,  philosophy  never  attains  by 
its  own  powers  to  any  absolute  certainty  or  any  complete  know¬ 
ledge  of  the  truth,  and  the  apostolic  witness  remains  unshaken : 
“The  world  by  its  wisdom  knew  not  God  in  His”  (I'^Cor.  i. 
21).  Is  not  this  witness  confirmed  by  history  ?  And  if  this 
be  the  case,  we  arrive  at  the  conclusion,  that  reason  by  itself 
does  not  suffice  for  attaining  to  a  true  knowledge  of  God ;  that 
in  fact  it  needs  a  light,  to  which  it  must  be  subordinate,  a 
corrective  against  error ;  that  is,  it  needs  the  help  of  revelation. 
“  In  Thy  light  shall  we  see  light  ”  (Ps.  xxxvi.  9)  ;  we  remain 
in  darkness  and  uncertainty,  so  long  as  we  are  illuminated 
l7y  nothing  but  the  dim  lamp  of  our  own  reason.  This  has 
been  confessed  by  some  even  of  the  greatest  philosophers, 
such  as  Fichte  and  Schelling,  who,  after  manifold  voyages 
and  wanderings  over  the  sea  of  rational  speculation  and  con¬ 
templation  of  nature,  have  at  last  steered  a  more  and  more 
decided  course  for  the  haven  which  is  found  in  a  belief  in 
revelation. 

This  conclusion  will  hardly  be  weakened  by  an  appeal  to 
the  results  of  natural  science  in  the  present  day,  which,  in 
direct  antithesis  to  metaphysical  philosophy,  assigns  to  sen- 

F 


82 


REASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[i.ECT.  II. 


sible  experience  as  a  source  of  knowledge  the  place  wliicli 
the  other  claims  for  reason.  AV e  will  only  ask :  AVhat  has 
modern  natural  science,  apart  from  revelation,  done  for  moral 
and  religious  knowledge  ?  It  also  has  sought,  in  its  own  wa}", 
to  solve  the  problem  of  the  world's  origin  and  of  the  life  upon 
it ;  but  in  that  attempt  has  involved  itself  in  such  absurdities, 
that,  now-a-days,  all  sober  naturalists,  one  after  another,  are 
openly  proclaiming  that  their  science  can  adopt  no  other 
basis  than  the  proposition,  “  In  the  beginning  God  created  the 
heaven  and  the  earth,”  without  involving  itself  in  a  cloud  of 
windy  hypotheses,  so  soon  as  it  attempts  in  other  ways  to 
solve  the  riddle  of  the  world’s  beginning.  Can,  then,  natural 
science  make  any  progress  in  its  endeavours  to  explain  the 
origin  and  formation  of  the  outward  universe,  without  tacitly 
assuming  the  activity  of  some  originating,  adapting,  and 
arranging  power,  indicated  in  those  first  words  of  Holy 
Scripture  ?  ”  ^  In  this  case,  also,  we  see  the  need  of  revelation. 
Natural  science  has  also  sought,  bv  means  of  its  own  invest!- 
gations,  to  solve  the  question  as  to  the  origin  of  man,  and 
has  arrived  *in  the  end  at  a  total  denial  of  the  spiritual  part  in 
man,  the  destruction  of  his  ethical  personality,  a  doing  away 
with  all  morality  and  religion,  and  the  annihilation  of  all 
moral  freedom  in  subjection  to  an  absolute  natural  necessity. 
The  materialism  of  the  present  day  shows  more  clearly  than 
any  previous  phenomenon,  that  nature  docs  not  merely  reveal 
hut  also  conceals  God.  Minute  observations  of  natural  pheno¬ 
mena  have  been  brought  to  an  unprecedented  degree  of  per¬ 
fection,  and  thereby  unveiled  more  clearly  than  ever  the 
depths  of  divine  wisdom  to  the  believers  in  revelation.  But 
he  who  rejects  the  lamp  of  revelation,  and  stops  short  at 
mere  material  results,  fails  thereby  to  recognise  the  connec¬ 
tion  of  the  whole,  and  through  tlie  material,  loses  the  sense 
of  the  immaterial,  the  spiritual,  and  the  diving. 

It  happens,  as  Goethe  predicts : 

‘  ‘  Who  of  the  living  seeks  to  know  and  tell, 

Strives  first  the  living  spirit  to  expel ; 

He  has  in  hand  tlie  separate  parts  alone, 

But  lacks  the  spirit-bond  that  makes  them  one!  ” 


*  See  the  proof  ' of  this  in  Ulrici,  Gott  und  die  Katur,  pp.  341-422.  We 
revert  to  this  again  in  Lect.  in. 


LECT.  II.] 


NATUEAL  THEOLOGY. 


83 


Let  wlio  will  call  this  progress — any  man  with  a  just  sense 
will  soon  note,  that  moral  and  religious  knowledge  (for  we  are 
not  speaking  here  of  what  is  gained  by  the  separate  branches 
of  natural  science  as  such)  can  only  lose  thereby  and  gain 
nothing ;  whilst,  on  the  other  hand,  splendid  results  are  obtained 
in  favour  of  the  deeper  knowledge  of  the  divine  wisdom  and 
love  by  an  investigation  of  nature,  so  soon  as  it  permits  reve¬ 
lation  to  intensify  its  view  of  the  “  spiritual  bond  of  union,”' 
of  the  One  in  the  many,  the  eternal  Cause  and  the  eternal  end 
and  aim  of  the  world. 

Some  have  attempted  lately  to  make  of  conscience,  as  the 
third  factor  of  natural  theology,  the  highest  source  of  religious 
knowledge,  and  to  represent  revelation  as  dependent  upon  it. 
So  they  follow  one  after  another.  Eeason  having  wearied 
herself  in  the  attempt  to  solve  the  mysteries  of  God  and  the 
universe,  nature  tried  her  hand  at  the  same  problem  ;  and  nov/ 
that  a  onesided  contemplation  of  nature  has  led  inquirers  into 
the  slough  of  materialism,  they  begin  to  interrogate  conscience. 
In  things  divine  it  would  seem  as  if  men  would  question  and 
attend  to  any  witness  rather  than  God  Himself. 

Of  these  three  factors,  conscience  wmuld  certainly  appear  to 
be  the  most  reliable.  Nevertheless,  the  numerous  researches 
which  have  been  recently  instituted  by  different  theologians 
into  the  nature  of  conscience,  are  in  their  results  just  as 
divergent  as  the  researches  of  philosophers  into  the  nature  of 
reason.  On  this  point  also  we  need  not  go  beyond  what  is 
generally  agreed  on.  That  the  word  “  conscience  ”  is  used  in 
different  senses,  sometimes  for  a  definite  subjective  knowdedge, 
sometimes  for  that  which  is  objectively  known  ;  that  we  speak 
not  only  of  a  religious  and  moral,  but  also  of  an  ecclesiastical, 
a  Christian,  a  scientific,  an  aesthetic,  indeed  even  of  a  public 
conscience,  etc.,  need  not  disturb  us  here,  for  all  we  are  now 
inquiring  after  is  the  common  fundamental  notion  represented 
by  the  word  in  all  these  uses  of  it. 

Now  conscience  is  confessedly  that-  consciousness  which 
testifies  to  the  law  of  God  implanted  in  us  ;  that  moral  faculty 
whereby  man  discerns  with  inward  certainty  what  is  right  and 
what  is  MU’ong  in  the  sight  of  God  (Rom.  i.  3  2),  and  is  con¬ 
scious  that  the  eye  of  God  is  turned  upon  him.'*  It  is  “  t.he 
moral  heart-throb  in  man,  testifying  to  the  existence  of  a 


84 


REASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[lect.  IL 


higher  will  by  which  it  is  implanted,  and  seehing  to  control, 
awakening,  guiding,  judging,  all  the  movements  of  human  life, 
so  far  as  it  pertains  to  the  province  of  free-will.”  Therefore, 
moral  convictions  only  are  directly  derived  from  the  action  of 
conscience.  As  being  man’s  knowledge  of  the  law  written  in 
his  heart  (avveLBrjaLs:),  it  produces,  indirectly,  a  certain  know¬ 
ledge  of  the  Lawgiver  and  His  will,  that  is,  of  God,  as  a  holy 
and  righteous  being,  the  moral  consciousness  being  here  iden¬ 
tified  with  the  religious.  So  far,  in  fact,  conscience  is,  from 
a  humanitarian  point  of  view,  a  genuine  source  of  natural 
theology. 

Scripture,  as  we  have  already  seen,  not  only  recognises  this, 
but  also  affirms  that  even  with  the  heathen,  conscience  has  not 
wholly  lost  its  efficacy  (Eom.  ii.  14,  15).  Even  fallen  man 
possesses  in  conscience  a  certain  sense  and  moral  appreciation 
of  truth,  which,  if  he  follow,  he  is  “  of  the  truth,”  susceptible 
for  higher  divine  truth  (John  xviii.  37).  On  the  other  hand, 
Scripture  by  no  means  supports  the  position  “  tliat  conscience 
is  the  source  and  judge  of  the  whole  complex  of  Christian 
doctrine  ;  that  no  dogma  is  to  find  place  therein  which  cannot 
be  referred  to  an  iitterance  of  conscience ;  that  conscience  must 
decide  without  appeal  as  to  the  divinity  of  Scripture  as  a 
whoie  or  in  detail.”^  According  to  this,  conscience  W’ould 
be  the  chief  if  not  the  only  source  and  highest  rule  of 
faith,  as  of  our  religion  generally.  And  this  is  more  or  less 
the  view  of  those  who  may  often  in.  the  present  day  be  heard 
to  say,  that  in  everything  man  need  only  follow  his  conscience  ; 
and  that  that  is  the  best,  nay,  the  only  true  religion.  In  all 
this,  the  assumption  evidently  is,  that  conscience  is  an  ever  re¬ 
liable  witness  for  the  truth,  a  constant  and  immutable  source  of 
moral  and  religious  knowledge.  Scripture  teaches  otherwise, 
namely,  that  conscience  may  err,  be  defiled,  become  impure  and 
weak  (Tit.  i.  15  ;  1  Cor.  viii.  7-10,  12  ;  1  Tim.  iv.  2) ;  that  as 
a  matter  of  fact  it  has  hccome  ivealcenccl  and  conf  used  hy  sin ; 
that,  in  order  to  attain  to  perfect  clearness  and  power,  it  nee^ls 
enlightenment  through  God’s  word  and  Spirit  {e.y.  Eom.  ix.  1), 
purification  (Heb.  ix.  14),  and  awakening  by  the  revealed  will 
of  God.  The  oftentimes  confused,  though  never  perfectly 
extinguished;  subjective  revelation  of  God’s  will  in  the  con- 
*  Cf.  Scheiike],  Christriche  Do^maiik  vom  Standpunht  des  Gcwlssens,  1858-59. 


LECT.  II.] 


NATLTwVL  THEOLOGY. 


85 


science,  needs  for  its  complement  the  pure  and  only  constantly 
reliable  objective  revelation  of  God  in  His  Word.  It  is  not, 
therefore,  revelation  which  is  to  he  determined  and  ruled  by 
conscience,  but  tlie  latter  by  revelation,  as  its  necessary 
accompaniment  and  indispensable  guide. 

Here  also,  therefore,  we  have  essentially  the  same  contro¬ 
versy  as  in  the  case  of  reason :  are  we  to  acknowledge,  or  not, 
that  the  conscience  has  been  darkened  and  confused  by  sin  ? 
This  question  is  practically  answered  in  the  negative,  when 
conscience  is  made  the  source  and  arbiter  of  the  whole  body  of 
faith.  Which  view  is  the  right  one  ?  Whether  conscience 
is  the  judge  of  revelation,  is  a  point  we  cannot  decide  until  we 
have  considered  what  revelation  itself  is.  On  the  otlier  hand, 
the  question  we  are  dealing  with  is,  whether  conscience,  either 
by  itself  or  combined  with  reason  and  nature,  is  not  an 
adequate  source  for  attaining  the  knowledge  of  God — a  source 
which  renders  revelation  superfluous  ? 

Is  it  so  ?  We  do  not  here  go  beyond  the  question  as  to 
what  conscience  objectively  lays  down.  Is  this  always  the 
same  ?  By  no  means.  We  find,  of  course,  in  all  men  a 
conscience,  and  make  the  further  observation  that  neither  its 
-witness  nor  its  nature  is  dependent  on  human  caprice.  It 
bears  its  testimony  with  an  authority  independent  of  our  will, 
and  this  is  an  essential  characteristic  of  conscience  as  it  exists 
in  all  men.  But  it  is  just  as  universally  the  case  that  conscience 
differs  partially  in  each  individual.^  It  bids  and  forbids, 
decides  and  judges  of  right  and  wrong,  according  to  the  insigld 
in  each  individual,  wliich  is  not  absolutely  common  to  all  men, 
but  in  part  at  least  very  changeable  and  various.  Hence  the 
difference  in  tlie  utterances  of  conscience  in  the  case  of  men  of 
different  degrees  of  culture  and  of  different  religions,  side  by 
side  with  a  certain  fundamental  similarity.  Hence  the  peculiar 
deficiencies  and  lacunae  in  the  consciences  of  so  many  men. 
Evidently,  therefore,  conscience,  like  reason,  is,  “  on  the  one 
hand,  something  vehich  has  hccome,  on  the  other  hand,  some¬ 
thing  ivhich  is  toecoming'd 

'  Cf.  Glider,  Erorterimgen  uher  die  Lelire  vom  Geivlssen  nach  der  Schrift, 
Krauss  id  supr.,  p.  134  if.,  who,  on  account  of  its  dissimilar  purport,  defines  con¬ 
science  as  “the  innate  compulsion  to  have  an  ideal  and  to  aekuowledge  it  as  , 
judge  over  oneself.”  Besides  also  cf.  H,  Hofmann,  die  Lehre  vom  Gewissen,  1866; 
Kahlcr,  Lehre  vom  Gewissen,  1864,  and  Delitzschwi  siqir.,  71  ff.,  161  If. 


86  TEASOX  AND  EEVELATION.  [LECT.  II. 

Wliat  follows  from  all  tliis  ?  First  of  all,  that  Scripture 
is  right  when  it  speaks  of  the  variations  and  confusions  of 
conscience ;  that  it  is,  therefore,  a  most  questionable  step,  to 
make  of  the  changeful  utterances  of  conscience  a  main  source 
of  Christian  dogma  ;  nay,  that  it  is  no  longer  possible  to  derive 
a  natural  religion  with  truths  %iniverscdly  valid,  from  the  utter¬ 
ances  of  conscience  talx^en  hy  itself,  apart  from  the  influences 
which  help  to  determine  it.  Not  with  tmili  universally  valid, 
for  every  conscience,  on  account  of  its  individual  character,  has 
real  moral  weight  for  its  possessor  only  (cf.  1  Cor.  x.  29); 
not  from  the  utterances  of  conscience  by  itself,  for  every 
separate  utterance  of  each  individual  conscience  has  its  source 
in  special  circumstances,  and  is  most  commonly  determined  by 
the  influence  of  some  positive  religion. 

If  all  this  already  renders  us  somewhat  cautious  in  the  use 
of  the  conscience  as  a  source  of  the  knowledge  of  God,  the 
testimony  of  history  will  make  us  still  more  cautious.  Here 
also  }ii.story,  not  abstract  researches,  must  be  suffered  to  decide. 
What,  according  to  its  testimony,  has  conscience  accomplislied 
for  true  theology  apart  from  revelation  ?  We  have  already 
lieard  the  answer  to  this  question  :  The  heathen,  notwithstand¬ 
ing  all  their  listening  to  the  voice  of  conscience,  as  it  spoke  in 
the  very  noblest  spirits  among  them,  did  not  attain  to  the 
knowledge  of  God  as  the  personal,  absolutely  Holy  One,  but 
“  changed  the  glory  of  the  unchangeable  God  into  an  image 
like  to  perishable  man  and  beasts  ”  (Eom.  i.  23). 

Let  us  take  a  glance  at  the  heathen  world.  One  man  aims 
at  deliverance  from  sin  by  means  of  a  bath ;  another  {c.g.  the 
North  American  Indians)  thinks  to  purify  his  heart  by  the 
aid  of  an  emetic ;  here  another  sets  prayer  mills  in  motion  at 
the  caprice  of  the  wind  ;•  another  pours  out  libations  of  wine 
or  tea,  sheds  human  blood,  or  offers  his  only  child  as  the  most 
acceptable  sacrifice.  Here  a  man  can  take  no  rest,  until  he 
has  accomplished  sanguinary  vengeance  on  the  man-slayer; 
there  a  fanatical  IMussulman  seeks  to  purchase  paradise  for 
himself  by  destroying  as  many  Christians  as  possible,  and  the 
like.  Are  not  all  these  just  so  many  examples  of  an  erring 
conscience,. is  strong  enougli  to  insist  on  some  kind  of 
sacrifice  or  expiation,  but  is  still  too  dark  to  apiireliend  the 
perversity  of  these  ways  and  means  ?  What  a  mistaken 


LECT.  11.  ] 


NATUR.VL  THEOLOGY. 


87 


idea  of  God  and  the  moral  duty  of  man  is  presupposed  in 
all  this  I 

Is  this  mere  spark  of  nioral  and  religious  knowledge  to  he 
supposed  sufficient  to  enable  men  to  solve  the  problem  of 
moral  duty  ?  The  fall  of  the  noblest  nations  of  anticpiity — the 
moral  corruption  of  heathen  nations  of  the  present  day  adding 
ever  fresh  confirmation  to  the  fearful  description  of  heathen  vices 
in  Eom.  i.  21-32 — answers  with  a  thousand-tongued  voice,  No  ! 
Even  the  knowledge  of  God  derived  from  conscience  was  not 
and  is  not  sufficient  to  guard  men  against  the  most  grievous 
moral  errors  and  the  wickedest  religious  abominations  ;  nor 
has  it  been  able  to  save  any  heathen  nations  from  moral  and 
religious,  and,  finallv,  even  from  material  destruction. 

Hut  is  it  so  ?  Must  it  not  be  allowed  that  tlie  natural 
religion  of  CQiiscience  goes  further  than  this  ?  IMay  we  not 
turn  from  the  dry  tree  of  popular  error  to  the  green  tree  of 
philosophical  speculation  ?  Well,  then,  let  us  take  one  philo¬ 
sopher  who  approached  more  nearly  than  many  others  to  a 
true  knowledge  of  God,  ascribing  to  Him  goodness  as  His 
most  essential  attribute,  —  let  us  glance,  for  instance,  at 
Plato’s  I’epublic.  What  do  we  find  there  ?  In  his  common¬ 
wealth,  he  desires  to  see  introduced  a  community, both  of 
goods  and  waives ;  he  desires  that  parents  should  not  even 
know  their  children,  to  say  nothing  of  educating  them  ;  that 
a  man  should  look  upon  all  children  as  his  own,  which,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  time  of  their  birth,  might  possibly  have  been 
his ;  that  the  mother  should  nourish  sometimes  one  child  and 
sometimes  another,  and  among  these  children,  only  incidentally 
those  which  were  born  from  her ;  that  the  rulers  of  the  State 
should  be  permitted,  without  further  question,  to  put  to  death 
weakly  and  unhealthy  persons,  and  should  prescribe  for  every 
one  his  vocation,  etc. ;  in  short,  he  sacrifices — and  this,  indeed, 
fully  in  conformity  with  the  ancient  idea  of  a  commonwealth — 
the  right,  the  freedom,  and  the  property  of  individuals,  in  the 
very  harshest  way,  to  the  good  of  the  State.  I  now  ask — 
According  to  all  these  details,  have  philosophers  been  able  to 
keep  themselves  free  from  the  clouded  moral  consciousness 
and  erring  conscience  of  their  time  ?  And  what,  then,  is  in 
this  case  the  fundamental  deficiency  ?  The  want  here,  as  in 
the  whole  of  heathenism,  is  the  recognition  of  the  worth  of 


83 


EEASOJT  AND  EEVELATION. 


FlECT.  II. 

I. 


each  human  personality.  This  man  only  begins  to  see,  when  he 
knows  the  God  of  love,  that  is,  by  means  of  revelation.  But 
if  the  heathen  is  deficient  in  a  right  knowledge  of  his  own 
moral  worth,  and  thus  also  of  his  moral  duty,  with  his  whole 
life  bound  up  in  the  worship  of  the  impulses  of  nature — a 
mere  life  of  selfishness,  how  is  it  possible  for  his  mind  to  rise 
to  any  clear  knowledge  and  apprehension  of  God,  as  an  abso¬ 
lutely  holy  and  loving  Will  ?  But  neglect  of  the  divine  law 
in  the  conscience  must,  the  longer  it  exists,  lead  more  and 
more  to  a  misapprehension  and  neglect  of  the  Lawgiver.  The 
loss  of  the  living  God  must  then  be  made  good  by  the  creation 
of  false  gods  of  one’s  own.  And  as  the  creator,  so  his  creatures. 
A  people  sunk  in  sensuality  and  cruelty,  creates  for  itself  sen¬ 
sual  and  cruel  gods,  and  worships  them  with  corresponding  rites. 

In  fact,  the  history  of  heathenism  is  the  history  of  the 
aberrations  of  conscience,  and  one  long  proof  of  the  need  of 
revealed  religion  for  its  enlightenment  and  purification.  But 
this  history  is  likewise  a  proof  that  conscience  is  never 
completely  extinguished,  and  that  it  absolutely  is  not,  as  cer¬ 
tain  materialists  seek  to  make  ns  believe,  a  matter  of  arbi¬ 
trary  agreement  and  of  conventional  manners  and  customs, 
but  is  an  original  revelation  of  God  in  man,  which  forms  a 
part  of  universal  human  essence  and  of  our  moral  nature. 
Bor  no  sooner  is  God’s  true  will  as  revealed  in  His  word 
presented  to  tlie  heathen  mind,  than  conscience  is  awakened 
even  in  the  cannibal,  who  reverting  to  his  higher  instincts, 
feels  shame  for  his  present  conduct  as  inconsistent  with  them  ; 
and  this  alone  were  enough  to  prove  that  conscience,  as  a 
source  of  natural  religion,  has  still  a  potential  existence  in 
every  human  mind,  however  much  obscured  by  error  and  sin. 

And  is  not  the  history  of  Christendom  also  replete  with 
proofs  that  without  the  continual  guidance  and  stimulus  of 
revelation,  the  conscience  soon  becomes  darkened  ?  What, 
for  instance,  has  brought  so  many  to  the  stake  ?  Very 
frequently  nothing  but  the  erring  conscience  which  thought 
that  thereby  “it  did  God  service”  (John  xvi.  2j.  Whence 
the  darkening  of  the  Christian  conscience,  such  as  that  ex¬ 
hibited  in  so  many  ways  in  the  moral  history  of  the  middle 
ages  ?  The  light  of  revelation  was  placed  “  under  a  bushel !  ” 
And  what  is  it  that  has  subsequently  awakened  the  Christian 


LECT,  II.] 


NATUEx\L  THEOLOGY. 


89 


conscience,  so  that  it  lias  again  reverted  to  the  worship  of  God 
in  spirit  and  in  truth  ?  The  light  of  God’s  word  !  Thus, 
therefore,  as  in  the  case  of  reason  and  nature,  we  again  arrive 
at  the  old  conclusion,  that  this  factor  of  natural  theology  also 
stands  in  need  of  revelation;  that  conscience  is  practically 
exposed  to  such  violent  fluctuations,  and  so  readily  errs  and 
is  perplexed,  that  it  cannot  dispense  with  the  continual  en¬ 
lightenment  and  fixed  rule  of  the  revealed  word. 

These  facts  are  overlooked  by  many  of  those  who  now 
regard  conscience  as  an  adequate  guide  in  matters  of  faith  and 
religion,  and  believe  that  they  can  dispense  with  revelation.^ 
Besides  this,  they  disregard  the  fact,  that  Christian  conscience 
can  no  longer  be  entirely  dissevered  from  revelation ;  that  its 
witness  is  a  priori  influenced  by  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  of 
which  the  strongest  rationalists  cannot  wholly  divest  them¬ 
selves,  so  that,  although  they  desire  to  adopt  a  mere  natural 
religion,  they  are,  nevertheless,  unable  to  dispense  with  the 
assistance  of  supernatural  revelation.  Finally,  they  over¬ 
estimate  the  force  and  range  of  conscience  and  reason,  in 
respect  to  the  satisfaction  of  our  moral  and  religious  need. 

An  old  mystic  says  somewhere,  “  God  is  an  unutterable  sigh 
in  the  innermost  depths  of  the  soul.”  With  still  greater  justice, 
we  may  well  reverse  the  proposition  and  say,  the  soul  is  a 
never-  ending  sigh  after  God ;  because  she  is  from  Him,  she  is 
also  for  Him,  and  tends  to  Him.  In  her  deepest  recesses  there 
lives  or  slumbers,  however  hidden,  an  inextinguishable  longing 
after  God.  She  knows  herself,  by  an  inward  sentiment,  not 
merely  to  be  dependent  on  Him,  but  at  the  same  time  drawn 
towards  Him,  and  destined  for  a  union  with  Him.  Being 
essentially  “  reasonable,”  she  reads  God  everyAvhere,  both  in 
and  without  herself,  so  that  she  is  unable  to  free  herself  from 
His  presence,  however  far  removed  from  Him,  as  the  voice  of 
conscience  shows.  But  the  more  she  seeks  and  apprehends, 
the  greater  is  her  longing  after  Him.  And  the  more  we  con- 
sider  the  nature  of  this  longing,  the  more  we  discern  that 
what  it  aims  at,  is  not  a  mere  intellectual  apprehension  of 
God,  but  a  vital  experience,  enjoyment,  and  communion.  The 

^  As  F.  Pecaut,  in  his  late  work  Le  Christ  et  la  conscience,  repeats  "with 
innumerable  terms  of  expression,  that  the  religious  and  moral  life  has  merely 
God  and  individual  conscience  as  its  two  factors. 


90 


EEISON  AND  REVELATION. 


[lect.  II. 


religious  need  is  essentially  of  a  practical  nature ;  it  is  an 
impulse  to  draw  nigh  to  God,  and  to  place  one’s  self  in  per¬ 
sonal  fellowship  with  Him,  proceeding  from  the  presentiment 
that  our  spirit  can  find  its  abiding  rest  and  satisfaction  in 
nothing  hut  this  fellowship,  and  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  love 
and  peace  of  God.  The  question  then  stands  finally  thus : 
Whether  natural  religion,  besides  imparting  a  true  knowledge, 
succeeds  likewise  in  conducting  the  soul  to  a  living  com- 
munion  wuth  God,  and  so,  in  satisfying  its  deepest  need  ? 

But  how  completely  incompetent  in  this  respect  is  it  shown 
to  be  if  we  seek  God  in  nature  ?  How  little  can  we  discern 
what  He  truly  is,  let  alone  the  failure  in  revealing  the 
sonal  relations  between  Him  and  us,  which  are  required  by 
our  religious  need !  We  feel  that  there  is  an  infinite  Being 
above  us,  by  whose  almighty  power  we  are  encompassed ;  but 
just  when  we  feel  the  nearness  of  the  Eternal  One,  the  words 
and  ideas  are  wanting,  which  might,  as  it  were,  clinch  the  im¬ 
pression  made  and  fix  it  in  the  form  of  clear  conceptions. 
Again  and  again,  the  Inexpressible  One  eludes  our  imagination, 
or,  we  only  too  readily  confound  Him  with  natural  powers  and 
phenomena,  and  so  thrust  into  a  dark  and  vanishing  distance 
the  Father  of  our  spirits  who  is  indeed  so  nigh ! 

Or  if  we  seek  God  in  the  realm  of  thought,  how  little  falls 
from  the  barren  heights  of  speculation  to  cheer  the  longing 
heart  and  its  burning  spirit  of  inquiry !  AVe  look  in  vain  even 
from  those  who  are  most  advanced  in  such  inquiries  for  testi¬ 
mony  as  to  any  real  satisfaction  derived  therefrom.  Socrates 
and  Plato  attained  perhaps  to  a  sense  of  the  Divine,  but  still 
think  of  God  as  one  who  remains  far  from  them.  Prophets 
and  apostles,  on  the  other  hand,  speak  of  Him  as  One  who  is 
very  nigh  them,  and  wliom  to  approach  is  their  highest  good 
(Ps.  Ixxiii.  28).  The  former  deduce  the  notion  of  God  in 
acute  syllogisms ;  the  latter  are  learning  to  know  Him  as 
He  is,  as  the  true  Shepherd  of  their  souls,  as  “  the  strength 
of  their  hearts,  and  their  portion  for  ever.”  In  the  one  case 
a  religious  need  is  satisfied,  in  the  other  it  is  not.  In  order 
to  estimate  the  whole  extent  of  this  difference,  compare, 
for  instance,  the  23d  or  the  73d  Psalm  with  any  one  of 
Plato’s  dialogues.  In  the  latter,  there  is  perhaps  an  approxi¬ 
mately  correct  answer  given  to  the  question  of  reason,  What 


LECT.  IT.] 


NATURAL  THEOLOGY. 


91 


is  God  in  Himself  ?  But  in  the  former  we  find  a  solution  to 
the  question  of  the  heart,  What  is  God  for  me  ?  How  can  I 
loersonally  become  a  partaker  in  Him  ?  Hor  till  these  questions 
are  solved  can  the  I'eligious  need  he  satisfied. 

I  am  \vell  aware  that  many  will  here  object,  that  they  feel 
their  religious  need  to  he  fully  satisfied  by  their  rational 
religion,  so  that,  in  this  case,  natural  religion  does  all  that  is 
required.  They  will  further  appeal  to  their  own  “  good  ” 
conscience  in  proof  of  the  inward  satisfaction  of  their  heart. 
But  is  there  not  here  a  fatal  self-deception  ?  I  should  like 
to  ask  these  “  good  ”  consciences  whether  they  can  honestly 
maintain  that  their  moral  convictions  and  their  practical 
conduct  never  disagree,  and  whether  the  former  are  actually 
suflicient  to  enable  them  to  resist  evil  and  to  do  good.  As 
being  the  moral  impulse  in  man,  conscience  should  do  both 
these  things,  and  produce  the  knowledge  of  good  and  the 
power  of  doing  it.  But  what  are  we  taught  by  history  and 
experience  as  to  the  relation  between  these  two  ?  Answer : 
Action  ahvays  falls  short  of  hioiolcclge — even  that  is  not  done 
which  man  knows  from  his  own  conscience  to  be  the  will  of 
God.  So  it  was  with  the  heathen.  “  When  they  knew  God, 
they  glorified  Him  not  as  God,  neither  were  thankful”  (Bom. 
i.  21).  We  see  the  truth  of  this  in  the  confession  of  Marcus 
Aurelius,  “  I  should  have  lived  better  than  I  have  done,  had 
I  always  followed  the  monitions  of  the  gods.” 

The  hnowledye  of  the  heathen,  therefore,  in  divine  things  was 
greater  and  better  than  its  practical  result.  Hence  their  sense 
of  guilt,  turning  their  good  conscience  into  an  evil,  self- con¬ 
demning  one ;  or,  in  time,  into  a  conscience  which  is  erring 
and  seared.  Attention  paid  to  conscience,  so  far  from  leading 
to  the  satisfaction  of  our  religious  needs,  conducts  to  a  kind  of 
moral  dualism,  of  which  we  find  virtuous  heathen,  making  the 
same  conqdaint^  which  Paul,  in  Bom.  vii.  7-25,  so  impressively 
describes.  Just  as  prophecy  was  the  incorporated  conscience 

^  Cf.,  for  instance,  the  passage  in  Xenophon,  Cyr.  vi.  1-41 ;  “I  certainly  have 
two  souls,  for  if  there  were  only  one,  it  surely  could  not  be  at  the  same  time 
good  and  bad,  nor  could  it  at  the  same  time  love  good  and  base  actions,  and  also 
at  the  same  time  wish  the  very  same  thing  and  not  desire  to  put  the  wisli  into 
action  ;  but  evidently  there  are  two  souls,  and  if  the  good  soul  gets  the  upper 
hand,  then  good  will  be  done,  and  if  the  evil,  then  shameful  actions  will  be  per* 
petrated”  (Delitzsch  utsupr.). 


92 


REASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[lect.  IL 


of  Israel,  so  the  conscience  was  “  the  prophet  of  the  heathen,” 
which  was  intended  to  awaken  the  longing  for  a  divine  redemp¬ 
tion,  by  means  of  the  sorrowful  recognition  of  its  own  impotence. 

And  has  it  ever  been  otherwise,  in  the  case  of  any  one  who 
has  rejected  the  aid  of  revealed  religion  in  his  moral  contiicts  ? 
Is  not  the  saying  of  St.  Paul  again  and  again  confirmed  by 
every  day’s  experience,  “  For  to  will  is  present  with  me  ;  but 
how  to  perform  that  which  is  good  I  find  not :  for  the  good 
that  I  would  I  do  not”  ?  (Eom.  vii.  18,  19.)  Does  not  the 
practical  conduct  often  fall  short  of  the  better  knowledge  and 
will  ?  If  we  all  are  more  or  less  compelled  to  acknowledge 
this,^  what  follows  ?  Why,  that  our  power  for  good,  derived 
from  conscience  and  natural  religion,  is  so  impaired  that  we  can 
never  keep  ourselves  wholly  free  from  evil,  nor  get  beyond  a 
feeling  of  guilt  which,  in  consequence  of  the  contradiction 
existing  between  our  knowledge  and  our  actions,  is  ever 
asserting  itself ;  and  if  we  then  seek  a  way  of  escape  from 
such  condemnation,  and  inquire  how  we  may  be  reconciled 
with  God,  what  further  counsel  can  reason  or  conscience  now 
afford  us  ?  None,  or  at  least  none  that  is  satisfactory.  Into 
what  follies  have  the  heathen  fallen  upon  this  point !  This 
is  the  juncture  at  which  natural  religion  either  fails  most 
miserably  or  utterly  misleads ;  it  knoivs  no  ivay  to  ijeace  or 
expiation  of  our  guilt  The  more  profoundly  the  knowledge  of 
the  Holy  One  penetrates  the  conscience,  the  purer  is  the  heart’s 
desire  after  atonement ;  but  the  more  a  man  seeks  to  find 
comfort  in  false  means  of  expiation,  the  more  confused  and 
darkened  does  his  conscience  become.  If,  with  nothing  but 
the  religion  of  reason  and  the  conscience,  man  cannot  place 
himself  in  a  right,  normal,  and  peaceful  relation  to  God;  if 
experience  teaches  him  that  this  religion  cannot  help  him  to 
get  over  the  moral  dualism,  it  follows  that  it  is  also  absolutely 
inadequate  to  the  satisfaction  of  his  religious  needs. 

Here  also  the  decisive  question  is,  lohethcr  or  not  evil  he 

^  That  so  much  is  allowed  even  by  the  most  “  free-thinlcing  ”  theologians,  we 
see  e.g.  from  the  Fredigten  ai(s  der  Gegemvart,  by  Dr.  Schwarz  of  Gotha,  III. 
Samml.  :  “Oh,  do  not  tell  me  that  to  act  uprightly,  and  to  do  one’s  duty,  and  to 
have  a  good  conscience,  are  sufficient.  I  ask  you,  ye  virtuoirs  ones,  who  among 
us  does  his  duty  and  has  a  good  conscience  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  word  ? 
Not  one  among  us  all.  We  all  are,  and  remain,  striving  and  struggling  ones* 
who  in  manifold  ways  err,  and  stumble,  and  fall  short.” 


LECT.  II.] 


NATURAL  THEOLOGY. 


93 


achioiolcdgecl  as  an  actually  disturling  power,  whicli  darkens 
tlie  conscience,  separates  us  from  God,  and  therefore  recj[uires 
an  atonement.  But  if  a  man  resolves  sin  into  a  mere  venial 
weakness,  and  the  divine  precept  of  perfection  into  that  of  a 
mere  external  honest v  and  righteousness, — that  is,  if  conscience 
he  so  weakened  in  him  as  no  longer  to  produce  apy  real  self- 
condemnation  (though,  perhaps,  retaining  some  measure  of 
influence  on  his  outward  life),  if  a  tendency  of  mind  has  been 
given  him  which  no  longer  attacks  sin  in  its  innermost  centre, 
— then  he  may  readily  consider  his  natural  religion  as  adequate 
to  the  satisfaction  of  his  inmost  needs,  and  thereby  assure  us 
of  his  good  conscience.  But  there  is  in  this  case  a  darkened 
and  enfeeUed  conscience,  and  not  a  really  good  and  pure  one. 
The  world  is  full  of  “.good  ”  consciences  of  this  kind.  Do  not 
allow  yourselves  to  be  deceived  by  supposing  that  revelation 
can  be  dispensed  with  in  attaining  true  peace  with  God. 
There  is  such  a  thing  as  a  delusive  peace,  and  a  delusive  satis¬ 
faction  of  one’s  religious  need. 

In  contrast  to  these  delusions,  keep  firmly  to  this  view ; — if 
natural  religion  is  really  to  satisfy  our  spiritual  need,  it  must 
be  able  to  confer  strength  adequate  to  the  resistance  of  evil 
and  the  performance  of  good  ;  and,  inasmuch  as  evil  already 
exists,  to  indicate  the  way  to  real  reconciliation  with  a  righteous 
God.  But  experience  teaches  that  natural  religion,  together  with 
conscience,  is  not  able  to  do  either  the  one  or  the  other ;  its 
inadequacy  hence  is  evident.  We  are  therefore,  from  the  bare 
consideration  of  our  religious  need,  driven  to  the  necessity 
of  some  supernatural  revelation.  And  this  revelation  must 
not  only  purify,  enlighten,  and  regulate,  but  also  supplement 
our  religious  hnoivledgc,  communicating  neio  truths,  to  the 
assistance  of  natural  religion,  and  attesting  its  special  divine 
character  by  its  redemptive  energy  in  breaking  down  the  power 
of  evil.  Does  Christian  revelation  do  this  ? 

We  have  previously  seen  that  its  aim  is  to  bring  fallen  man 
back  to  God,  in  the  way  which  is  called  and  is  Christ.  Its 
j)ith  and  centre  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement.  It  therefore 
points  out  to  our  religious  need  a  new  mode  of  attaining  satis¬ 
faction,  Christ.  And  further  still ;  it  also  confers  the  power 
of  embracing  it.  It  enlightens  and  enlarges  knowledge,  but 
not  without  first  becoming  a  power  in  the  heart,  and  an  energy 


94 


llEASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[LECT.  II. 


in  t!ie  will ;  it  becomes,  indeed,  a  man’s  own  possession,  not 
intellectually,  but  in  a  moral  way,  by  the  self-surrender  of  the 
heart  and  will.  It  can  therefore  once  more  reconcile  know¬ 
ledge  and  action  by  a  restoration  of  the  moral  faculty  and  re- 
invigoration  of  the  power  for  good.  Hence  it  accomplishes 
both  ends,  shows  the  way  of  reconciliation,  and  imparts  strength 
for  future  righteousness.  And  this  is  confirmed  by  the  daily 
experience  of  all  true-hearted  Christians.  Ask  of  them  wliether, 
in  the  salvation  revealed,  they  do  not  find  life  and  full  satis¬ 
faction  for  their  religious  need  ? 

After  all  this,  we  can  understand  the  statement  of  Scrip¬ 
ture,  that  there  can  be  no  true  insight  in  divine  things  without 
regeneration,  without  a  new,  higher  life  being  implanted  in 
us  from  above.  Hot  until  we  are  reconciled  to  Him  can  we 
again  truly  love  the  Divine  Being,  from  whom  we  have  been 
separated  by  sin,  and  be  so  intimately  united  with  Him  in  love, 
that  His  glory  shall  be  ever  increasingly  revealed  to  us.  And 
Ave  shall  also  be  compelled  to  acknowledge  the  truth  of  that 
prophecy  which  represents  all  Gentile  nations  as  shrouded  in 
ignorance  and  error,  till  the  true  divine  and  saving  knowledge 
manifests  itself  in  the  new  covenant  of  the  latter  day  ;  “  The 
Lord  of  Hosts  will  destroy  in  this  mountain  the  face  of  the 
covering  cast  over  all  peoples,  and  the  veil  that  is  spread  over 
all  nations  ”  (Isa.  xxv.  7). 

This  will  appear  still  more  clear  to  us,  if  we  give  a  closer 
consideration  to 


II. - SUPERNATURAL  THEOLOGY,  OR  THE  KNOWLEDGE  OF  GOD 

DERIVED  FROM  REVELATION. 

"We  take  this  last  word  in  its  narrower  sense.  In  its  more 
comprehensive  sense,  it  signifies  in  general  the  vdiole  divine 
energy  of  self-communication  in  creation,  in  the  conscience, 
and  in  providence.  In  this  revelation,  as  we  have  seen,  even 
the  heathen  have  a  share.  In  tiie  narrower  sense,  revelation 
denotes  a  sii'pernatiiral  manifestation  of  divine  ejraee  influenc¬ 
ing  Imman  knowledge  for  mans  eternal  good ;  an  unveiling 
of  mysteries  whicli  lie  beyond  the  province  of  reason,  and 
may  therefore  stand  in  a  certain  contrast  to  it.  When,  for 


LECT.  II.] 


EEVEALED  EELIGION. 


95 


in.stance,  Christ  says  to  Peter,  “  Flesh  and  blood  hath  not 
revealed  this  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven 
or  when  St.  Paul  testifies  that  he  had  not  received  his  gospel 
from  any  man,  but  “  through  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,” 

■ — these  are  revelations  in  this  special  sense.  To  the  same 
category  belongs  all  that  Scripture  tells  us  of  God’s  self¬ 
communications,  under  both  the  old  and  the  new  covenant, 
whether  made  by  immediate  theophanies  or  through  angelic 
and  human  instrumentality,  through  outward  miracles  or 
through  inward  spiritual  manifestation,  vision,  and  inspiration. 

In  respect  to  revelation,  a  distinction  must  be  drawn 
between  the  divine  action  in  itself  and  its  influence  on  man, 
that  is,  between  the  outward  objective  self-manifestation  of  God, 
and  the  inward  subjective  illumination  of  the  human  intellect. 
Whatever  manifestation  of  Himself  God  vouchsafes.  He  seeks 
at  the  same  time  to  interpret  to  man  by  the  Spirit,  even  as  the 
manifestation  of  the  divine  glory  in  the  universe  is  supple¬ 
mented  by  the  voice  of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  the  conscience. 
Both  together  constitute  revelation,  properly  so  called.  The 
crown  and  ultimate  goal  of  all  divine  revelation  is  He 
in  whom  alone,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  the  perfection  of 
divine  knowledge  dwelt,  who  alone  on  earth  declared  per¬ 
fectly  the  divine  will  —  the  only-begotten  Son,  w^ho  cauld 
truly  say  of  Himself :  “  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the 
Father”  (John  i.  18,  vi.  46,  xiv.  6-9).  In  Christ,  therefore, 
both  factors  of  revelation  meet :  He  is  at  once  the  perfect 
manifestation  of  God,  and  the  perfectly  enlightened  or  inspired 
Man. 

The  object  of  divine  revelation  is  God  Himself,  historically 
manifestincr  Himself  in  the  character  of  Saviour  ;  and  Man 
needs  no  other  object  of  revelation.  God’s  self  -  revelation, 
therefore,  is  at  the  same  time  a  special  form  of  His  work  of 
redemption,  and  has  human  salvation  for  its  end.  The  great 
miracle  of  revelation  is  historically  developed  in  a  threefold 
form  :  ^  sometimes  God  appears,  sometimes  He  spccdcs,  some¬ 
times  He  ivories  miracles.  These  forms  are  closely  allied,  and 
therefore,  in  the  historical  developments  of  revelation,  often 

^  Cf.  also  in  H.  von  der  Goltz,  Gottes  Offenharung  (lurch  hdllge  Geschichte, 
Basle  18G8,  the  e-vcellent  section  as  to  “the  mode  and  form  of  divine  revela¬ 
tion,”  pp.  81-107. 


96 


REASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[lect.  II. 


found  together ;  the  revelations  being  made  either  externally 
through  the  senses,  as  in  angelic  appearances,  or  internally 
through  the  workings  of  the  human  spirit,  as  in  prophetic 
dreams  or  visions. 

The  announcement  of  this  revelation,  which,  up  to  the 
time  of  fulfilment,”  was  confined  to  a  particular  branch  of 
the  human  race,  and,  after  Christ,  became  a  common  property 
of  mankind,  is  contained  in  Scripture;  and  that  which  was 
previously  communicated  to  special  persons,  in  an  extra¬ 
ordinary  way,  now  comes  to  us  all  in  an  ordinary  way,  by  tlie 
written  or  spoken  word  of  human  agents,  along  with  the 
inward  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  even  thus  it  pre¬ 
sents  itself  to  us  as  supernatural  and  divine  truth.  Tliis,  in 
all  brevity,  is  the  scriptural  and  Christian  idea  of  revelation. 
Incomprehensible  as  it  may  at  first  appear,  we  must  not 
overlook  that  revelation,  despite  its  essentially  supernatural 
character,  has,  and  must  have,  a  natural  side  also.  In 
all  divine  manifestations,  created  existences  are  the  media 
through  which  the  presence  and  glory  of  God  are  revealed  to 
men  (Isa.  vi.;  Ezek.  i.,  ix.;  Eev.  iv.).  In  all  divine  utterances, 
God  condescends  to  the  limits  of  human  understanding,  and 
adapts  His  revelation  to  the  mental  condition  of  its  recipients  ; 
giving  first  milk,  then  strong  meat  (John  xvi.  12  ;  1  Cor.  iii. 

1,  2  ;  Heb.  v.  12-14).  And  even  divine  miracles,  as  we  shall 
see  further  on,  have  not  unfrequently  a  natural  basis.  Eeve- 
lation  is  never  given  without  some  previous  preparation,  in 
the  historical  developments  of  human  thought  and  human  , 
needs. 

Nor  is  this  done  in  any  irregular  or  arbitrary  way  :  the 
developments  of  revelation  follow  fixed  internal  laivs  and  a 
certain  order,  and  are  confined  within  definite  limits ;  both 
Old  and  New  Testament  making  manifest  the  divine  purpose 
in  the  fourfold  development  of  electing,  calling,  blessing,  and 
taking  into  covenant.  Even  the  superficial  observer  cannot 
fail  to  note  the  progressive  developments  of  divine  communi¬ 
cations  with  man  from  the  simple  intercourse  of  a  primeval 
time  to  the  world  -  covenant  made  with  Noah,  and  from 
tlience  onward  to  the  covenant  of  promise  established  with 
Abraham,  the  covenant  of  the  law  made  with  Israel,  and 
finally  the  covenant  of  grace  in  Christ  with  the  whole  world. 


LECT.  II.] 


EEVEALED  EELIGION. 


97 


There  is  therefore  a  continuous  progress — an  ever  clearer 
manifestation  of  the  Divine  Nature,  and  of  its  purposes  of 
love  for  man,  concluding  with  the  mission  of  Christ  and  the 
Comforter  (Heb.  i.  1,  2). 

There  is  also  a  certain  progress  in  the  form  of  revelation. 
At  first,  God  revealed  Himself  in  sensible  manifestations, 
which  were  an  inevitable  accommodation  to  the  needs  of 
humanity  while  still  in  pupilage,  just  as  every  tutor  has 
now  to  condescend  to  the  capacity  of  the  child.  With 
Moses  He  spake  “face  to  face,  as  a  man  talketh  with  his 
friend”  (Ex.  xxxiii.  11;  Num.  xii.  8).  Then  came  miracles 
wrought  by  divine  power,  through  human  instrumentality ; 
and  in  these  we  may  note  a  certain  internal  educational 
progress  from  the  material  to  the  spiritual ;  the  miracles  of 
inspiration  becoming  gradually  the  more  prevailing  forms  of 
divine  manifestation,  until,  in  the  miracle  of  miracles,  the 
person  of  Christ,  the  deepest  spiritual  mysteries  of  redemp¬ 
tion  were  unfolded,  and  finally,  through  the  outpouring  of 
the  Spirit  and  the  inspired  gospel  records,  revelation  became 
abidingly  an  inward  thing  conveyed  to  us  by  the  Word  and 
Spirit. 

Further,  Scripture  miracles  are  sparingly  distributed,  and 
after  an  ordered  plan  among  various  periods,  and  in  very 
different  measures,  according  to  their  differences  of  character. 
The  most  significant  make  their  appearance  at  decisive 
turning -'points  in  sacred  history,  e.g.  the  election  of  fresh 
aiients  of  revelation,  and  the  constitution  of  new  forms  of 
covenant.  It  wms  thus  in  the  patriarchal  age,  and  in  those 
of  Moses,  of  David,  and  of  Christ  and  the  Apostolic  Church. 
In  the  periods  between  these  epochs,  miracles  are  not  so 
frequent.  When  the  point  in  question  was  more  to  maintain 
that  which  existed  than  to  found  something  new,  the  Word, 
the  most  inward  mode  of  revelation,  remains  the  only  form 
of  it.  We  everywhere  see  a  progressive  preparation  for  the 
complete  revelation  of  God  in  Christ;  we  see  the  sequel 
constantly  linked  on  to  that  which  precedes,  and  further 
developing  it ;  we  see  also  in  Christ  Himself  a  wise  tutorial 
progress  in  making  known  the  secret  things  of  God  down  to 
the  last  and  most  profound,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  which 
not  until  lie  had  His  departure  in  view  did  He  fully  make 

a 


98 


KEASON  AND  EEVELATION. 


[lect.  II. 


known  (Matt,  xxviii.  19).  Further,  the  lower  forms  of 
revelation,  in  which  the  chief  point  is  some  manifestation  of 
Deity,  always  prepare  the  way  for  the  more  perfect  forms  of 
inward  inspiration ;  and  these,  again,  point  onward  further 
still  to  a  final,  all-completing  manifestation  in  the  second 
advent  of  Christ.  Finally,  we  see  the  Divine  Ptevealer 
keeping  always  one  and  the  same  end  in  view — man’s  eternal 
good,  and  thereby  always  adapting  llis  revelations  to  the 
particular  needs  and  capacity  of  their  recipients. 

But,  more  especially,  divine  revelation  is  something  quite 
different  in  its  mode  of  operation  from  what  is  called  magic, 
and  addresses  itself  to  man  in  his  ethical  caj)acity ;  the  moral 
condition  of  the  recipient  determines  in  the  main  its  measure 
and  its  limitations.  Although  under  special  circumstances 
God  may  allow  some  sordid  person  like  Balaam  to  he  the 
medium  of  revelation,  the  rule  nevertheless  holds  good,  that 
God  adopts  as  His  instruments  those  who,  through  their 
moral  and  religious  character,  were  peculiarly  capaMe  of 
appreciating  divine  things,  such  as  Abraham,  Moses,  David, 
tlie  prophets,  the  apostles,  and,  above  all,  Christ  (Matt, 
xi.  25;  Acts  vii.  22,  x.  35;  Jas.  iv.  8;  Jer.  xxix.  13). 
Everywhere  we  find  that  revelation  is  met  on  the  part  of 
man  by  a  heart-seeking  after  God,  after  truth,  and  after 
sanctification.  “  If  ye  seek  me  with  your  whole  heart,  ye 
shall  surely  find  me.”  This  practical  piety  was,  from 
Abraham  to  Christ,  the  constant  medium  of  existing  and 
progressive  revelation,  which  varied  in  the  clearness  of  its 
manifestations  with  the  varying  religious  character  of  its 
exponents. 

And  so  still  the  divine  revelation  contained  in  Scripture 
communicates  itself  as  a  full  personal  possession  only  to  that 
heart  which  meets  it  with  an  honest  seeking  after  truth.  By 
indifference,  or  opposition  to  truth,  the  susceptibility  for 
divine  things  is  lost,  and  thus  also  the  possibility  of  receiving 
any  further  revelations.  In  Nazareth,  Christ  “  doeth  not  many 
miracles,  on  account  of  their  unbelief.”  In  revelation,  as  in 
otlier  things,  God  deals  Avith  us  as  free,  responsible  creatures. 
His  supernatural  revelation  is  no  more  irregular  and  arbitrary 
than  that  through  nature.  On  the  contrary,  everywhere  we 
see  measure,  order,  Avell-planned  gradation,  organic  connectioj , 


LECT.  II, J 


REVEALED  RELIGION. 


99 


well-defined  limits,  and  the  operation  of  its  own  inward  laws 
in  all  its  self-impartations  to  man. 

If  we  keep  this  in  view,  many  rationalistic  objections  will 
refute  themselves,  raised  as  they  are  against  the  specific  worth, 
necessity,  possibility,  and  intelligibility  of  a  supernatural  reve¬ 
lation. 

What  Scripture  tells  of  divine  appearances,  spiritual  mani¬ 
festations,  visions,  etc.,  is  often  compared  with  similar  pheno¬ 
mena  in  heathen  religions,  and,  consequently,  the  specific  talue 
of  Christian  revelation  is  denied. 

Without  comparing  its  moral  and  religious  character  with 
the  pretended  communications  of  heathen  deities,  it  will  here 
suffice  us  to  point  out  the  profound  difference  between  the 
biblical  and  the  whole  heathen  idea  of  revelation.  The  reve¬ 
lations  of  heathen  gods  invariably  have  reference  to  something 
isolated,  external,  and  fortuitous  ;  and  even  when  they  impart 
moral  precepts,  these  have  no  real  internal  connection.  In 
Scripture,  on  the  other  hand,  revelation  is  one  grand  systematic, 
progressive  organism,  which  from  its  very  commencement  goes 
on  expanding,  and  so  as  to  exhibit  its  smallest  details  in  living- 
connection  with  the  whole,  and  its  one  great  end,  the  moral 
and  religious  good  of  man. 

We  find  nowhere  else,  in  the  whole  course  of  the  history 
of  religion,  a  like  conception  of  the  end  and  purpose  of  divine 
revelations.  The  biblical  view  of  revelation,  apart  from  its 
sacred  purport,  is  unique  in  its  nature,  and  it  is  therefore 
CL  priori  a  mistake''  to  force  it  down  to  the  level  of  the  heathen 
view.  We  must  also  note  the  important  distinction,  that  in 
heathen  legends  it  is  always  the  iLiost  ancient  times  which 
abound  in  miracles,  and  that  subsequently  miracles  gradually 
decrease  ;  whereas  in  Scripture  the  grandest  revelations  and 
most  striking  miracles  occur  at  different  times,  and,  indeed, 
always  at  particular  crises  of  sacred  history,  and  without  dis¬ 
appearing  in  the  course  of  a  history  extending  over  four  thou¬ 
sand  years. 

But  if  from  the  fact,  that  not  Christianity  and  Judaism 
only,  but  many  other  religions  also,  advance  a  claim  to  reve¬ 
lation,  any  one  is  tempted  to  conclude  that  this  claim  is  in  no 
case  trustworthy,  and  that  we  cannot  know  which  is  the  true 
relffiion,  seeino:  the  “revealed”  relicfions  all  contradict  one 

O  '  o  o 


100 


EEASON  A^'D  EEVELATIOX. 


[LECT.  IL 


another,  and  that  therefore  it  is  best  to  reject  them  cn  masse, 
he  is  excellently  answered  by  A.  Monod,  in  his  Lucile :  “  If 
twenty  persons  at  once  set  up  along  with  you  a  claim  to  the 
inheritance  of  your  cousin,  could  a  just  judgment  nonsuiting 
you  and  all  the  rest  be  based  on  the  assumption  that  there  is 
no  legal  heir  ?  A  lie  is  only  credible  when  it  makes  use  of 
truth  to  back  it  up.  Spurious  money  is  not  coined  except 
where  good  money  exists.  Quack  doctors  obtain  patronage 
only  because  there  are  true  physicians  and  real  remedies.  In¬ 
stead  of  concluding  that  there  is  no  true  reveledion  because  there 
arc  so  many  false  ones,  we  should  on  the  contrary  conclude,  that 
there  are  only  so  many  false  because  there  is  one  truel  The 
other  inference  cannot  be  drawn,  except  by  that  indolent  spirit 
which  shirks  the  trouble  of  examining  into  the  different  claims 

O 

of  religious  systems,  a  task  which,  at  the  present  day,  can 
hardly  be  very  irksome.  That  can  only  be  the  true  and 
perfect  religion,  which  exercises  the  most  wholesome  influence 
on  the  moral  life  of  individuals  and  of  nations.  “  By  their 
fruits  ye  shall  know  them.”  And  who  at  the  present  day  can 
stand  in  doubt  on  this  point,  if  he  compares  Christian  nations 
with  heathen  and  Turks,  or  even  with  the  Jews  ? 

Against  the  necessity  of  revelation,  the  objection  is  generally 
made,  from  a  rationalistic  point  of  view,  that  if  God  was  com¬ 
pelled  from  time  to  time  to  manifest  Himself,  then  creation 
must  have  stood  in  need,  as  it  were,  of  continuous  “  after¬ 
help.”  If  animals  can  attain  to  their  prescribed  destiny  by 
means  of  their  natural  powers,  man  can  do  the  same  by  means 
of  his  reason.  In  opposition  to  these  views,  the  rejoinder  has 
justly  been  made,  that  if  man  and  beast  differ  by  means  of 
reason,  and  consequently  in  their  destination  and  in  their 
means  of  attaining  it,  they  may  also  well  differ  in  the  mode 
and  way  in  which  they  realize  their  destiny. 

But  this  whole  theory  of  “  after-help,”  by  which  God’s 
original  plan  of  creation  is  made  to  appear  as  having  been 
incomplete,  is  absolutely  inadmissible.  Scripture  represents 
the  counsel  of  redemption  as  having  been  from  the  first  co¬ 
existent  in  the  Divine  Mind  with  that  of  creation  (Eph.  i.  4  ; 
1  Pet.  i.  20).  The  fact  of  revelation,  therefore,  does  not  imply 
that  God  has  been  compelled  by  intervening  circumstances, 
to  wit,  the  genesis  of  sin,  to  resolve  on  affording  such  after- 


LECT.  II.] 


EEYEALED  RELIGIOM. 


101 


help”  to  His  own  work;  on  the  contrary,  from  the  very 
beginning,  due  provision  was  made  in  the  divine  plan  for 
such  eventuality  ;  and  God’s  own  free  love  is  only  carrying 
into  effect,  by  means  of  revelation,  that  which  from  eternity 
He  had  determined  and  prepared  for,  in  order  to  conduct  the 
rational  universe,  spite  of  all  disturbing  influences,  to  its  ulti¬ 
mate  and  glorious  consummation.  The  very  idea  of  any  after¬ 
thought  and  alteration  of  the  divine  work  or  plan,  is  absolutely 
excluded  by  the  very  terms  of  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  reve¬ 
lation. 

It  is  indeed  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  that  man  stands  in 
need  of  divine  assistance.  A  special  revelation  from  God  is 
a  necessity  for  us,  and  that  for  two  reasons  :  first,  by  reason 
of  our  natural  helplessness ;  and  secondly,  on  account  of  the 
Fall,  and  man’s  consequent  degeneracy.  For  does  not  every 
child  which  is  brought  into  the  world  need  some  “  after- 
help  ”  ?  And  is  it  to  be  supposed  that  the  first  members  of 
our  race  required  no  education  ?  And  who  but  God  could 
have  been  their  Educator  ?  If  their  only  teachers  were  the 
animals,  whence  came  their  gift  of  speech  ?  Whence  the 
development  of  their  moral  and  spiritual  faculties  ?  Whence 
those  purer  religious  ideas  which  are  continually  cropping  up 
among  the  fragments  of  the  oldest  heathen  religions  ?  How 
can  things  of  this  kind  be  explained  without  presupposing  a 
divine  interposition  and  assistance  ?  Hone  but  he  who  denies 
the  necessity  of  any  such  education,  can  deny  the  necessity  of 
some  special  intercourse  between  the  first  man  and  his  Maker, 
or  be  offended  at  that  paternal  and  quasi-human  relation  in 
which  the  first  chapters  of  the  Bible  represent  God  as  putting 
Himself  wdth  man.  Our  own  little  ones,  feeling  themselves 
their  need  of  education,  look  for  and  submit  to  it.  In  doing 
this  they  exhibit  more  understanding  than  many  adults. 

But  no  sooner  had  sin  entered  the  w^orld,  and  with  it  an 
increasing  radical  disturbance  of  the  very  foundations  of 
natural  theology,  and  of  the  proper  exercise  of  reason  and 
conscience,  than  the  necessity  became  manifest  of  further 
revelations  on  the  part  of  God  of  Himself  and  of  His  plan  for 
human  redemption.  When  the  unbelief  of  the  natural  man 
had  developed  into  the  various  forms  of  pagan  superstition, 
how  was  it  any  longer  possible  for  man  to  find  out  for  him- 


102 


REASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[lect.  II. 


self  the  highest  absolute  Good,  the  liviug  and  true  personal 
God,  without  the  aid  of  a  new  supernatural  revelation  ? 
Here  again  our  former  position  holds  good :  only  he  who 
denies  the  existence  and  power  of  sin  can  deny  or  dispute  tlie 
necessity  of  some  special  revelation ;  but  then  let  him  also  ask 
himself  what  he  can  make  of  the  main  facts  of  man’s  religious 
history,  and  of  the  clear  proofs  they  give  of  the  thorongli 
incapacity  of  reason  when  left  to  itself  ?  How  natural  and 
reasonable  on  the  other  hand,  how  conformable  with  the 
results  of  history  and  daily  experience,  is  the  teaching  of 
Scripture  as  to  the  educating  processes  and  progressive  de¬ 
velopments  of  divine  revelation !  For  the  first  members  of 
our  race,  regarded  as  children,  revelation  was  a  nurse  who 
taught  them  to  walk  in  leading-strings ;  for  fallen  man  it 
became  a  task-master,  as  in  tlie  law  of  Moses ;  and  finally,  for 
those  who  had  learned  the  need  of  redemption,  it  manifested 
itself  as  a  freedom-giving  law  of  the  spirit  of  Christ  and  the 
gospel.  Appeal,  indeed,  is  often  made  to  the  perfection  of  the 
natural  universe  and  its  arrangements  as  not  admitting  of, 
much  less  recpiiring,  any  such  divine  manifestation  or  inter¬ 
ference  ;  but  this  is  a  point  to  wliich  we  shall  have  to  recur 
when  we  come  to  a  critique  of  Deism  and  to  the  question  of 
miracles. 

Of  late,  however,  an  attempt  has  been  made,  starting  from 
this  very  assumption  that  there  has  been  such  a  gradual 
progressive  spiritual  development  of  the  human  race,  to  deny 
the  necessity  of  divine  revelation,  at  least  for  ns  in  our  present 
stage  of  enlightenment.  However  necessary  such  revelation 
may  have  been  at  an  earlier  jieriod,  it  is  now  maintained  tliat 
“reason  educated  by  Christianity,  like  a  son  who  has  attained 
his  majority,  can  shift  for  itself”  So  speaks  the  spirit  of 
our  age,  witli  its  feverisli  longing  for  emancipation  in  every 
department  of  thought  and  action.  The  emancipation  here, 
however,  could  be  only  a  partial  one.  Eeason  by  itself  would 
be  still  inadequate  for  the  task  assigned  it.  Formed  at  first 
by  Christian  influences,  it  remains  subject  to  such  influences 
still.  Previous  revelations  could  not  fail  to  operate  still,  and 
to  exert  at  any  rate  an  indirect  influence  on  future  develop¬ 
ments. 

How,  we  ask  in  the  first  place,  is  this  result,  the  maturity 


LECT.  II.] 


REVEALED  RELIGION. 


103 


of  reason,  to  be  maintained  wlien  divorced  from  its  cause  ? 
Arc  those  factors  no  longer  in  action  which  formerly  rendered 
a  revelation  necessary  ?  Does  sin,  then,  no  longer  exist,  whose 
power  of  obscuration  in  reason  and  conscience  cannot,  as  we 
know  from  history  and  experience,  be  abidingly  broken  except 
by  the  redeeming  influence  of  divine  revelation  ?  What  other 
ultimate  defence  than  Christian  revelation  have  we  against  an 
immediate  relapse  into  heathen  barbarism — what  that  has  not 
already  historically  shown  itself  to  be  a  completely  insufficient 
protection  against  moral,  social,  and  national  corruption  ?  Is 
it  our  modern  culture  or  our  science  ?  The  main  object  of  the 
theory  under  discussion  is  certainly  to  place  these  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  Christianity,  as  the  guiding  stars  of  our  future  pro¬ 
gress.  But  we  have  already  in  our  former  Lecture  recognised 
the  fact,  that  culture  and  science,  apart  from  Christianity,  have 
no  abiding,  moral,  and  spiritual  efliciency.  Modern  civilisa¬ 
tion  is  in  every  department  dependent  upon  Christianity,  and 
a  severance  from  that  which  constitutes  its  groundwork 
would  be  nothing  less  than  the  initiative  of  a  relapse  into 
barbarism.  Or  has  then  reason,  we  would  further  ask,  so 
manifestly  attained  her  complete  majority  as  to  be  now  fully 
capable  of  “shifting  for  herself”?  How  many  objections 
may  be  urged  against  such  a  position  ?  The  glance  we  lately 
took  at  philosophy  showed  us  how  little  ground  modeim  rea¬ 
son  has  to  boast  of  its  performances.  On  this  point  we  would 
only  ask  one  question :  Are  there  not  still  many  revealed 
truths  (for  instance,  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement)  indis¬ 
pensable  for  our  religious  needs,  and  yet  not  capable  of 
rational  demonstration  ?  Finrdly,  if  we  are  now  to  believe 
that  reason  has  outgrown  the  need  of  revelation,  let  it  at 
least  be  shown  that  revelation,  as  a  source  of  culture,  is  ex¬ 
hausted  and  used  up,  and  can  impart  no  more  instruction. 
According  to  the  Bible,  God’s  revelation  of  Himself  in  Christ 
is  perfect,  inexhaustibly  rich,  sufficing  for  all  ages  and  all 
needs,  down  to  the  consummation  of  all  things.  Is  this  so 
or  not  ?  On  this  point,  one  of  our  chief  counter-authorities  is 
Lessing,  the  great  antagonist  of  revelation. 

In  his  work  die  Erzicliung  des  Mcnscliciigcschlechts  (“  The 
Education  of  the  Human  Bace  ”),  Lessing  had  the  merit  of  re¬ 
introducing  into  modern  religious  philosophy  the  idea  of  a 


104 


ItEASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[lECT.  II. 


divine  education  of  man,  referring  to  the  Epistle  to  tlie  Gala¬ 
tians,  chap.  iii.  and  iv.,  but  without  sounding  the  full  depth  of 
the  scriptural  idea  of  such  education.  Starting  from  this 
idea,  he  endeavoured  to  show  that  while  the  religion  of  the 
Old  Testament  was  the  childhood,  and  Christianity  the  youth, 
of  mankind,  a  step  was  now  to  be  made  beyond  them  into  full 
manhood ;  belief  in  revealed  truths  as  motives  of  moral  con¬ 
duct  being  henceforth  superseded  by  the  spontaneous  action 
of  the  human  mind,  following  after  goodness  for  its  own  sake, 
and  ivithout  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  future  rewards  and 
vunishments. 

A 

We  hear  this  thought  reiterated  on  all  sides  in  the  present 
day,  and  in  every  possible  form.  Not  long  ago  a  literary 
journal  in  the  Grand  Duchy  of  Baden,  discussing  the  pro¬ 
priety  of  teaching  the  ten  commandments,  propounded  the 
opinion,  that  the  fifth  commandment  was  immoral  because  of 
the  sanction  attached  to  it,  “  that  thy  days  may  be  long  in 
the  land,  etc.,”  seeing  that  here  a  reward  is  held  out  as  an 
inducement  to  obedience.  So  then,  the  “  full  age  ”  to  which 
humanity  is  now  supposed  to  have  attained  consists  in  man’s 
doing  good  purely  for  goodness’  sake.  Who  sees  not  the 
hollowness  of  this  bombastic  talk  ?  That  man  has  yet  to  be 
born  whose  practice  will  be  regulated  by  a  theory  so  insipid.^ 
For  what  is  the  idea  of  goodness  se?  It  must  have  some¬ 
thing  actually  good  as  its  substance.  The  attainment  of  some 
end  morally  good,  either  for  himself  or  for  others,  must  float 
before  the  mental  vision  of  the  nian  who  acts  morally — that 
is,  he  must  have  certain  aims  in  view,  which,  again,  react 
upon  liim  as  motives.  And  these  aims  must  be  distinctly 
conceived.  The  abstract  idea  of  goodness  is  not  an  effectual 
motive  for  well-doing.  An  idea  like  this  can  only  work 
effectually,  and  with  living  power,  when  prototypically  realized 
in  some  actual  'personedity ,  whereby  it  may  lay  hold  of  the 
heart  of  the  individual  man.  No  such  perfectly  good  person- 

'The  original  German  is  dieser  rjraxien  Thtorie — “this  grey  theory,”  the 
reference  being  to  Gbthe’s  well-known  words  in  Faust : — 

“  Gi’au,  liebster  Frennd,  ist  alle  Theorie,  . 

tJnd  griin  des  Lebens  goldener  Baum.” 

All  theory,  dearest  friend,  is  pallid  grey, 

While  life’s  fair  golden  tree  is  fresh  and  green. 


LECT.  11.  ] 


EEVEALED  RELIGIOX 


105 


ality  is  anywliere  presented  to  ns  but  by  revelation,  and  in 
the  person  of  Christ.  Eevelation,  therefore,  and  the  divine 
personality  disclosed  by  it,  remain  a  necessity  so  long  as  men 
are  to  do  good  as  well  as  dream  of  goodness. 

It  is,  moreover,  a  fundamental  error  to  regard  Christianity  as 
in  its  essence  a  doctrine  of  reicards  and  punishments.  This  has 
long  since  been  proved  in  reply  to  Lessing,  and  results  from 
our  own  previous  delineation  of  the  true  nature  of  Christianity. 
Neither  Lessing  himself,  nor  the  later  developments  of  ration¬ 
alistic  philosophy,  have  been  able  to  reconcile  or  identify  the 
actual,  historical,  supernatural  basis  of  Christian  revelation  with 
that  which  they  maintain  to  be  its  true  and  original  substance. 
So  both  are  driven  to  try  to  get  beyond  Christianity  altogether, 
and  to  deny  the  continuous  necessity  of  any  revealed  religion. 
And  that  is  just  what  we  might  expect.  '  For,  if  we  eliminate 
from  Christian  faitli  its  sujrernatural  elements,  the  residuum  will 
be  so  dry  and  soulless  a  skeleton,  that,  in  fact,  no  reason  will 
appear  for  tying  down  the  spiritual  development  of  humanity 
to  such  lifeless  companionship.  The  only  question,  therefore, 
is,  whether  we  recognise  as  matter  of  fact  any  supernatural 
element  in  Christianity  ;  whether  we  allow  or  not  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  miracles — both  points  which  we  shall  have  to  inves¬ 
tigate  more  closely  further  on.  If  it  be  denied  that  God 
exercises  any  direct  influence  on  human  life,  there  can  be  no 
such  thing  as  a  divine  education  of  mankind  :  man  must  have 
educated  himself,  because  left  to  himself  by  God.  But  then 
comes  the  question  :  Could  God,  in  accordance  with  His  own 
nature,  have  thus  treated  man  ?  and  the  answer  depends  on 
our  conception  of  the  idea  itself  of  God.  But  if  it  be 
conceded  that  God  did  once  begin  to  educate  humanity,  a 
twofold  question  thence  arises :  First,  Can  this  educating 
agency  cease  to  operate  so  long  as  God  continues  to  be  Euler 
of  the  Universe,  and  before  the  final  consummation  of  all 
things  has  set  in  ? — can  He  leave  man  to  himself,  as  having 
attained  his  “  full  age,”  so  long  as  the  continuing  presence  of 
sin  puts  him  in  constant  danger  of  failing  to  attain  his  desti¬ 
nation,  in  accordance  with  the  divine  idea  ?  And  next. 
Are  the  revelations  made  in  past  times  by  God,  for  the  purpose 
of  furthering  our  education,  cdready  exhausted  ? — is  none  of 
them  any  longer  adecpiate  to  our  present  stage  of  culture  ? 


106 


eeaso:n‘  axd  revelation. 


[LECT.  II. 


"We  may  as  pupil‘3  get  beyond  a  human  teacher,  hut  surely 
not  a  divine.  Is  there  any  one,  for  instance,  who  has  hut  in 
some  degree  entered  into  a  perception  of  the  infinite  beauty 
and  glory  of  the  character  of  Christ,  and  is  yet  hold  enough  to 
say  that  he  has  no  more  to  learn  concerning  it  ?  Where  is 
the  interpreter  of  Scripture  to  he  found,  worthy  of  the  name, 
who  would  maintain  that  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  is 
now  exhausted  ?  We  are,  indeed,  now  further  advanced  than 
ever  in  this  work  of  interpretation ;  hut  the  more  perfection 
we  give  to  our  exegetical  appliances,  the  more  plentifully, 
clearly,  and  transparently  do  the  sources  of  divine  knowledge 
flow,  tlie  more  inexhaustible  is  their  well-spring  in  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  shown  to  be.  But  the  more  profound  the  treasures  of 
truth  thus  hroim’ht  to  liRht,  the  more  full  of  blessing;  oimht 
their  influence  to  he  on  the  moral  and  intellectual  life  of  the 
present  day,  whether  as  regards  the  mass  or  tlie  individual. 
Divine  revelation,  though  culminating  in  Christ,  is,  even  in  this 
its  last  form,  not  quiescent,  hut  2'>rogressivc ;  linfoldwg  itself  more 
and  more  ricldy  in  Avord  and  spirit,  and  constantly  exercising, 
hy  ever  fresh  develoqyments,  a  imogrcssivcly  educating  injluence 
on  tlu  humanity  to  which  it  has  hecn  given.  Tliis  truth  was 
overlooked  hy  Lessing.  He  who  does  not  acknowledge  the 
supernatural  element,  the  deep  things  of  God  enshrined  in 
revelation,  must  likcAvise  fail  to  apprehend  the  inexhaustible 
fulness  of  the  germs  of  human  culture  Avhich  are  also  contained 
within  it. 

lievelation,  like  mankind,  has  run  its  course  of  childhood 
and  youth.  The  former,  when  God  condescended  to  personal 
converse  with  Adam  and  the  patriarchs ;  the  latter,  when 
He  encompassed  Avith  the  thorny  hedge  of  the  Law  of  Sinai 
the  vigorous  and  aspiring  hut  sensual  and  unruly  people  of 
Israel  (or,  looking  at  the  heathen  side,  Avhen  the  Greek  Avorld, 
from  Achilles  to  Alexander,  Avas  stamping  all  its  creations, 
both  material  and  mental,  Avith  the  impress  of  its  youthful, 
cheerful,  and  ideal  character).  But  the  manhood  of  the  human 
race  did  not  begin  after  the  rise  of  Christianity,  hut  together 
with  it.  If  riper  knowledge  and  experience,  more  earnest  and 
effective  Avork,  greater  independence  and  firmness  in  Avill  and 
action,  constitute  the  pre-eminence  of  the  man  o\"er  the  youth, 
these  are  the  very  characteristics  which  the  influence  of  Chris- 


LECT.  IL] 


KEVEALED  RELIGION. 


107 


tianity  Lronglit  to  maturity,  both  in  nations  and  individuals. 
It  was  only  through  the  gospel  that  men  attained  to  a  deeper 
knowledge  of  their  moral  and  religious  duty,  and  learned  to 
make  a  pure  unseldsh  love,  self-renunciation,  and  self-denial  the 
bases  of  their  new  and  nobler  life :  it  was  the  gospel  that  first 
tauglit  men  to  strive  and  to  suffer,  with  the  manlike  weapons  of 
intellect  and  patience,  for  a  more  and  more  complete  appre¬ 
hension  of  truth,  and  to  be  more  and  more  strenuous  in 
labours  for  its  propagation  :  it  was  not  till  the  advent  of 
Christianity  that  men  became  spiritually  free  and  independent, 
and  conscious  of  their  individual  and  personal  dignity.  In 
fact,  Christianity  has  ever  been,  in  a  way  that  no  other  agency 
has  been  able  to  approach,  a  nursing-school  for  true  men,  for 
heroes  in  thought,  in  action,  and  in  suffering;  and  that  be¬ 
cause  it  presents  to  the  world,  and  to  every  man’s  spiritual 
apprehension,  the  Hero  of  all  heroes,  the  Sufferer  of  all 
sufferers,  as  leader  and  example.  In  view  of  what  Christi¬ 
anity  has  done  for  individuals  and  the  race  during  well-nigh 
two  thousand  years,  we  may  confidently  say  ;  He  whom  the 
school  of  Christ  does  not  make  into  a  man  will  never  learn 
true  manliness  in  any  other !  If  nations  and  individuals  are 
to  retain  any  power  of  further  spiritual  development,  they  can 
only  do  it  by  retaining  a  living  sense  of  the  truth  and  efficacy 
of  the  Christian  revelation  ;  once  eliminate  or  weaken  this 
source  of  strength,  the  freshness  of  spiritual  life  will  soon 
wither  away.  Any  step  taken  in  supposed  advance  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  would  prove  a  transition,  not  from  youth  to  manhood, 
but  from  manhood  to  senility, — i.e.  to  a  mental  condition  of 
absolute  indifference  or  doubt,  a  temper  of  the  idlest,  most 
self-sufficient  hypercriticism,  the  shallowest  subjectivity,  and 
an  all-disintegrating  egotistical  selfishness.  Offensive  practical 
proofs  are  no  longer  wanting  of  what  the  condition  of  things 
would  be  were  mankind  once  to  turn  their  backs  on  all  posi¬ 
tive  Christian  belief.  And  such  facts  afford,  we  think,  the 
strongest  arguments  for  the  continuous  necessity  of  revelation. 

So  long,  however,  as  the  ennobling  influence  of  revealed 
Christian  truth  continues  to  operate,  no  one  has  a  right  to  say 
that  its  mission  has  ended,  or  that  the  present  generation  has 
outgrown  it.  It  is  not  that  we  are  in  advance  of  revelation, 
but  that  revelation  ever  keeps,  and  has  kept,  in  advance  of  us  ; 


108 


REASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[LECT.  II. 


raising  men  by  just  degrees  to  purer  heights  in  the  knowing  and 
doing  of  goodness  and  truth,  and  imparting  to  all  who  honestly 
seek  to  apprehend  it,  the  enjoyment  of  ever  larger  manifesta¬ 
tions  of  its  divine  light.  Our  human  apprehension  of  Christian 
truth,  both  the  scientific  and  the  practical,  is  not  only  suscep¬ 
tible  of,  but  of  necessity  requires,  constant  enlargement;  but  this 
cannot  be  said  of  God’s  own  revelation  of  Himself  in  Christ, 
which  by  its  very  idea  must  from  the  first  have  been  absolutely 
perfect.  Whatsoever  the  Spirit  of  Truth  may  have  vouchsafed 
since  the  Lord’s  ascension  to  reveal,  or  shall  still  reveal  to  men, 
“  He  will  take,”  says  Christ,  “  of  7nine  and  will  show  it  unto 
you  ;  ”  thereby  indicating  that  all  true  progress  in  religious 
knowledge  has  its  only  source  in  Christ,  and  that  there  is  oio  jiossi- 
hility  of  a  perfecting  of  religion  hcyoncl  Christianity.  It  follows, 
therefore — and  that  is  the  element  of  truth  in  the  above- 
mentioned  objection — that  no  fresh  revelation  will  be  needed 
till  the  consummation  of  God’s  kingdom.  But  for  that  very 
reason  the  revelation  already  vouchsafed  is  not  to  be  set  aside, 
but  remains  for  all  time  equally  valid  and  necessary.  And 
this  must  be  remembered  in  all  discussions  of  the  views  of 
the  many  who,  in  the  present  day,  would  retain  Christianity 
as  a  general  groundwork  while  desiring  to  dispense  with  its 
positive  dogmas,  who  speak  of  “  a  religion  of  the  future,”  or  a 
"  religion  of  humanity  developed  from  the  religion  of  Christ  ” 
(Strauss),  and  so  destroy  the  very  foundations  on  which  they 
pretend  to  build.  The  very  notion  of  a  “religion  of  humanity  ” 
is  a  product  of  revelation ; — ^what  is  it,  indeed,  but  a  mere 
abstract  term  expressing  the  fact  that  God  has  revealed  to 
mankind  things  concerning  their  own  nature  of  wdiich  they  had 
themselves  become  oblivious  ? 

One  word  more.  Eevelation  must  continue  to  be  a  necessity 
for  human  nature  as  long  as  the  mind  and  heart  of  man 
remain  in  their  created  dependence  upon  God,  and  that  even 
apart  from  the  existence  of  sin.  The  inner  life  of  the  soul  of 
man  is,  as  we  have  seen,  “  an  infinite  longing  after  God.”  We 
find  tokens  of  the  existence  of  this  longing  everywhere,  even 
among  the  heathen.  They  too  seek  to  make  approaches  to 
what  they  believe  to  be  divine  ;  they  neither  can  nor  desire  to 
get  rid  of  the  conviction  that  their  divinities  draw  nigh,  appear 
to,  and  communicate  with  them.  And  has  this  deep  universal 


LECT.  II.] 


EEVEALED  EELIGION. 


109 


longing  been  implanted  in  man,  never  to  be  satisfied  by  a  special 
revelation  on  tbe  part  of  Him  who  implanted  it ;  wliereas  both 
experience  and  history  teach  that  his  spiritual  thirst  can  never 
more  be  stilled  by  draughts  of  a  mere  natural  theology  ?  Even 
though  the  fact  of  God’s  existence  were  made  certain  to  us  in 
other  ways,  should  we  not  still,  in  the  absence  of  a  direct  reve¬ 
lation,  feel  astonishment  and  take  offence  at  such  complete 
immobility  in  a  Being  who  is  life  itself,  and  such  a  hard  and 
stubborn  silence  in  Him  who  is  infinite  Wisdom  and  Love  ?  ” 
(Piougemont.)  To  questions  like  these,  which  ground  the 
necessity  of  a  divine  revelation  alike  on  the  nature  of  God 
Himself  and  our  own  human  needs,  the  only  answer  our  oppo¬ 
nents  have  to  give,  is  found  in  a  deistical  conception  which 
completely  isolates  Him  from  His  own  universe, — a  conception 
which,  further  on,  we  shall  have  to  consider  more  closely. 

But  we  proceed  to  ask,  is  such  a  revelation  of  Himself  by 
God  possible  ?  The  answer  to  this  question  must  ultimately 
depend  on  the  conception  we  have  formed  of  God  and  of  man. 
He  who  believes  in  a  living  personal  God,  and  in  the  existence  in- 
man's  nature  of  the  divine  image,  a  capacity  for  perceiving  God 
by  reason  and  for  recognising  Him  in  the  conscience,  together 
with  an  inward  loiminq  for  communications  from  Him,  cannot 
but  maintain  from  both  these  points  of  view  the  possibility  of 
revelation.  For  all  revelation  is  but  the  highest  expression  on 
the  part  of  God  Himself,  of  His  actual  personal  relations  to 
man  as  His  creature  and  His  child.  If  this  our  fundamental 
position  be  granted,  the  refutation  of  all  objections  made  by 
opponents  is  easy.  But  if  any  dispute  it,  the  argument  must 
revert  to  a  discussion  of  the  fundamental  conception  of  God,  and 
of  the  possibility  of  miracles.  Every  act  of  divine  revelation  is 
indeed  a  miracle ;  and  the  acknowledgment  of  its  possibility 
concedes  the  principle  that  miracles  are  possible.  This  part 
of  the  question  we  defer  to  a  future  lecture  (Lect.  v.).  Here 
we  take  in  view  some  special  difficulties,  by  which  the  accept¬ 
ance  of  the  possibility  of  a  supernatural  revelation  appears  to 
be  encumbered. 

How— -that  is  our  fii'st  query — may  the  infinite  distance 
between  God  and  man  be  so  l)ridged  over  that  a  personal  com¬ 
munication  between  them  shall  become  possible  ?  Lot  us  see 
what  help  we  may  find  in  Scri})ture  towards  answering  this 


110 


SEASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[lect.  li. 


question.  And  in  order  not  to  anticipate  wliat  will  have  to 
he  said  in  a  future  lecture  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
you  will  allow  me  to  touch  hut  briefly  on  the  main  points. 

First  of  all,  the  distinction  must  he  observed  which  exists 
in  the  Divine  Nature  itself,  an  aspect  of  self-concealment  and 
one  of  self-manifestation.  The  latter  is  called  in  Scripture  the 
Word,  or  Logos,  wdiich  “  in  the  beginning  ”  “  was  w’ith  God,” 
and  by  whom  “  all  things  were  made  “  the  only-begotten  Son 
in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,”  who  alone  has  “  declared  Him.” 
All  revelations  from  creation  to  Pentecost,  and  from  Pentecost 
to  the  end,  have  been  and  can  be  made  only  through  Him. 
He  is  the  eternal,  hypostatic  self-manifestation  of  God,  and 
therefore  called  “  the  Light  of  the  World.”  In  Him,  as  in  His 
other  self,  God  can  draw  nigh  to  other  beings  also,  having  in 
Him,  as  it  were,  already  become  another.  It  is  in  the  internal 
distinctions  of  the  Divine  Essence  that  the  possibility  lies  of  clivine 
external  manifestation.  The  second  (and  third)  “  Persons  ”  in 
the  Godhead  form,  so  to  speak,  the  bridge  between  God  and 
creation.  In  Christ,  as  “  the  everlasting  life  and  light  of 
men,”  there  has  existed  from  eternity  a  bond  between  man 
and  God.  In  Christ,  God  can  draw  nigh  to  us  and  hold 
communication  with  us.  And  here  we  may  already  see,  what 
further  on  will  be  made  more  evident,  that  one  wdio  believes 
not  in  the  Eternal  Son  of  God  can  hardly  recognise  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  any  special  divine  revelation ;  the  infinite  exaltation 
of  the  Divine  Being  above  all  created  things  may  w^ll  seem  to 
such  an  one  to  interpose  a  gulf  that  nothing  can  bridge  over. 
The  only  bridge  possible,  exists  not  for  him. 

Further,  \ve  find  in  all  divine  revelations  recorded  in 
Scripture  a  certain  self- limitation  on  the  part  of  God,  either 
hiding  His  divine  glory  in  angelic  or  human  shape,  or  in 
that  of  some  physical  phenomenon — wind,  cloud,  or  fire ;  or 
else  only  partially  disclosing  it  so  as  even,  while  revealing 
Himself,  to  remain  still  the  hidden,  supramundane,  and  in¬ 
visible  'One.  So  Moses,  with  whom  the  Almighty  speaks 
“  mouth  to  mouth,”  can  only  see  Him  from  behind,  and  re¬ 
ceives  the  admonition,  “  My  face  shall  not  be  seen  ”  (Ex. 
xxxiii.  18-23).  And  even  when  He  appears  in  whom  “the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwelleth  bodily,”  the  Father  still  remains 
the  supramundane  and  invisible  One.  The  Infinite  cannot 


LECT.  II.] 


REVEALED  RELIGION. 


Ill 


communicate  itself  to  tlie  finite,  except  in  a  limited  manner ; 
the  whole  cannot  possibly  come  into  manifestation.  Scrip¬ 
ture,  therefore,  draws  a  distinction  between  “  that  which  may 
be  known  of  God”  (Rom.  i.  19),  on  the  one  hand,  and  His 
hidden,  incomprehensible  essence  on  the  other ;  whereof  it  is 
said,  “  God  dwelleth  in  the  light  which  no  man  can  approach, 
whom  no  man  hath  seen,  nor  can  see”  (1  Tim.  vi.  16).  And 
therefore  in  all  revelations,  God  puts,  as  it  were,'  a  restraint 
upon  Himself,  communicates  to  man  only  so  much  liglit  as  he 
is  able  to  bear,  and  with  the  wonted  condescension  of  true  love 
submits  for  our  sakes  to  self-limitation. 

So  much,  in  brief,  concerning  tlie  divine  end  of  the  bridge 
formed  by  revelation  between  God  and  man.  How  for  the 
other,  the  human  end  of  it.  And  here  we  observe,  that  a  peculiar 
fitness  is  predicated  in  Scripture  of  the  rcc^nents  of  revelation. 
They  are  all,  as  we  have  seen  above,  men  endowed  beforehand 
with  a  special  capability  and  susceptibility  in  relation  to  tbs 
Divine,  they  are  the  elect  ones  of  mankind, — an  Abraham,  a 
Moses,  a  David,  an  Isaiah,  a  Raul,  a  Peter,  a  John,— men  already 
standing  by  their  personal  faith  in  a  closer  relation  to  God  than 
others.  And  even  these  men,  in  receiving  revelations,  experi¬ 
ence  an  emancipation  from  creaturely  limitations  correspond¬ 
ing  to  the  voluntary  condescension  and  self-limitation  on  the 
part  of  God.  They  are  raised  above  their  ordinary  conscious¬ 
ness  in  a  greater  or  a  less  degree ;  they  are  “  in  the  Sjiirit,” 
or  a  visionary  trance,  at  the  time  when  spiritual  revelations  are 
afforded  them.  This  at  least  would  seem  to  be  more  especially 
the  case  with  the  prophets  and  apostles ;  whilst  in  that  of 
Moses,  God’s  condescending  limitation  of  Himself  is  made 
more  prominent.  The  transfiguration  of  our  Lord  was  a  tem¬ 
porary  emancipation  of  the  same  nature  ;  and  in  the  world  ’  to 
come  we  may  anticipate  that  such  liberation  from  the  present 
condition  of  human  intelligence  will  be  fully  vouchsafed  to  all 
saints :  on  it,  indeed,  depends  the  possibility  of  our  knowing 
God  hereafter,  even  as  also  we  ourselves  are  known  ”  (1  Cor. 
xiii.  12). 

Pinally,  yet  another  agency  of  mediation  between  God  and 
man  is  found  in  the  angels,  who  appear  as  heaven  -  sent 
messengers  (and  especially  in  manifestations  of  the  divine 
glory),  not  only  to  Abraham  and  Moses  (Acts  vii.  30,  35, 


112 


REASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[lect.  IL 


53),  to  David  and  Zecliariali  under  the  Old  Testament,  but 
also  in  attendance  on  our  blessed  Lord  (John  i.  51),  and  in  the 
Kew  Testament  generally.  These  glorious  beings  are  repre¬ 
sented  as,  on  the  one  hand,  allied  by  their  creaturely  nature 
to  man,  and,  on  the  otlier,  by  their  higher,  spiritual,  and  sinless 
condition,  as  standing  in  closer  affinity  to  God,  and  therefore 
as  more  capable  than  we  of  receiving  direct  communication 
from  Him,  and  of  being  His  ambassadors  and  representatives 
in  the  world.  On  this  difficult  question  of  angelic  agency 
there  remains,  no  doubt,  as  on  that  of  miracles  generally,  many 
a  knotty  problem  to  be  solved ;  but  so  much  we  fearlessly 
assert  ourselves  to  have  established,  that  there  is  no  sufficient 
a  ijriori  ground  in  reason  for  precipitate  rejection  of  the  possi¬ 
bility,  ay,  and  the  necessity  too,  of  a  supernatural  revelation 
of  God  to  man. 

For  surely  the  considerations  which  we  have  now  been 
urging  get  rid  at  once  of  some  of  the  most  common  oljcctions 
to  th&  possibility  of  revelation.  The  objection,  for  instance,  so 
often  made,  that  the  Absolute  and  Infinite  cannot  communicate 
itself  to  the  finite,  just  because  the  latter  is  incapable  of  com¬ 
prehending  it,  is  perfectly  correct.  But  where  is  it  taught  in 
Scripture  that  God,  in  any  of  His  revelations,  has  made  a 
complete  communication  of  Himself  to  us  ?  The  above-named 
scriptural  distinction  between  the  self-revealing  side  of  the 
divine  nature  and  the  hidden  and  incomprehensible  one  is  in 
this  objection  entirely  overlooked.  God  still  remains  the 
supramundane  and  the  infinite,  even  while  communicating 
Himself  in  revelation  to  man.  We  do  not  comprehend  Him 
fully,  but  only  perceive  “that  which  may  be  known  of  God,” 
■that  which  for  salvation  it  is  needful  to  know.  The  best  know¬ 
ledge  is  but  imperfect  here  (1  Cor.  xiii.  9) ;  the  perfect  is 
reserved  for  the  world  to  come. 

This  scriptural  distinction  is  •  also  overlooked  by  Strauss 
{Christl.  Glaubensl.)  when  urging  the  immutability  of  the  divine 
nature  as  rendering  any  special  revelation  impossible ;  because 
the  assumption  of  such  “  an  isolated  act  of  God  in  time  con¬ 
tradicts  the  idea  of  His  unchangeableness :  ”  an  objection  this 
somewhat  unbecoming  in  a  representative  of  Pantheism ;  for 
where  is  God  represented  as  more  subject  to  change  than  in 
the  process  of  “  becoming  ”  to  which  the  Pantheist  would  con- 


LECT.  II.] 


EEVEALED  EELIGION. 


113 


demn  Him  ?  In  like  manner  argues  the  otherwise  very  meri¬ 
torious  philologer  Jacob  Grimm ;  that  the  fact  of  God’s  once 
having  spoken  to  a  man  would  imply  that  He  has  subjected 
Himself  to  an  historical  process  which  the  Uncreated  and 
Immutable  cannot  do.  Our  answer  is,  that  it  is  only  in  His 
self-rcvcaling  aspect  that  God  appears  under  the  conditions  of 
time  and  historical  development ;  in  His  inner  nature  He  still 
remains  the  supramundane  and  immutable  One.  Eevelation 
is  a  development,  but  not  one  to  which  the  Divine  Hature  is 
itself  subjected.  In  whatever  measure  God  condescends  to 
work  upon  and  rule  the  world.  He  sets  in  motion  there  a 
course  of  gradual  historical  processes,  pre-arranged  in  harmony 
with  the  needs  and  conduct  of  man ;  but  His  own  eternal 
nature  is  never  drawn  into  the  ebb  and  flow  of  these  develop¬ 
ments.  The  Absolute  and  Eternal  One  cannot  become  any¬ 
thing  other  than  Himself,  but  can  only  he  and  continue  from 
everlasting  to  everlasting  what  He  is.  And  so  Scripture 
speaks  of  “  becoming  ”  or  “  happening,  ”  or  of  any  distinctions 
of  time,  in  reference  only  to  creatures ;  of  God  it  simply  says 
that  “  He  is  what  He  is,”  “  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and 
for  ever”  (Ex.  iii.  14;  Ps.  cii.  28  ;  Heb.  xiii.  8).  We  may, 
indeed,  turn  the  point  of  their  own  argument  against  our 
opponents  and  say ;  The  divine  immutability  is  realized  and 
secured  by  divine  acts  of  revelation.  If  God  is  to  remain  in 
Himself  immutable,  and,  despite  the  abuse  of  human  freedom 
of  will,  is  to  accomplish  His  own  eternal  counsels  concerning 
the  world  and  man.  He  must  conduct  by  special  act  of  revela¬ 
tion  the  universe  of  His  creatures  towards  its  eternally  pre¬ 
determined  end  and  aim.  God’s  immutability  in  essence  and 
in  purpose  on  the  one  hand,  and  special  revelations  of  Ilis 
purposes  to  man  on  the  other,  are  necessiiry  correlatives.  He 
only  who  substitutes  for  the  scriptural  idea  of  a  living  personal 
God  an  abstract  impersonal  Order  of  the  universe,  is  pre¬ 
cluded  from  recognising  the  possibility  of  such  special  acts  of 
divine  self-manifestation,  and  loses  at  the  same  time  the  very 
idea  of  a  moral  order  in  the  world  around  him. 

Grimm’s  strange  objection,  that  the  notion  of  God  speaking 
to  man  at  all  implies  His  possession  of  “  a  body  and  teeth,” 
loses  all  force  and  application  when  we  bear  in  mind  the 
Scriptm'e  doctrine  that  His  chief  revelation  is  made  in  Christ 

u 


114 


MASON  AND  RZVELATION. 


[LECT.  II. 


the  Incarnate  Logos,  and  many  others  through  angelic  spirits, 
with  their  etherial  corporeity.  And  in  any  other  cases  of 
apparent  anthropomorphism  we  may  surely  apply  the  Scrip¬ 
ture  argument,  “  He  that  made  the  eye,  shall  He  not  see  ?  ” 
He  that  made  the  mouth,  shall  He  not  speak  ?  i.e.  shall  He 
fail  in  methods  for  makinfr  known  to  us  His  will  ? 

O 

A  like  fear  of  seeming  to  degrade  and  materialize  the  idea 
of  God,  by  admitting  the  possibility  of  special  acts  of  self¬ 
manifestation,  determines  many  minds  in  the  present  day  to 
deny  all  revelation  except  by  inward  mental  processes,  and  to 
relegate  all  external  manifestations  of  the  divine  into  the 
realm  of  fable.  This  sounds  grand,  and  flatters  the  conceit  of 
modern  enlightenment.  So,  for  instance,  writes  the  rational¬ 
istic  Schenkel:  “When,  in  accordance  with  traditional  theolog}', 
God  is  supposed  to  have  revealed  Himself  through  external 
natural  phenomena,  angelic  agencies,  and  the  like,  men  forget 
that  God  is  a  Spirit,  and  that  every  conception  which  degrades 
His  self-manifestations,  by  mixing  them  up  with  the  alterna¬ 
tions  of  material  phenomena,  is  radically  untheological,  and 
destructive  of  the  true  idea  of  God.”  But  we  have  just  seen 
that  this  is  by  no  means  the  case ;  not  the  inner  nature  and 
essence,  but  only  the  self-revealing  aspect  of  Deity,  enters  into 
any  connection  with  material  phenomena.  And  why  should 
it  not  be  able  to  do  this  ?  God  is  indeed  a  Spirit ;  but  is  the 
world  then  mere  lifeless  matter  which  the  Spirit  can  never 
employ  as  its  organ  ?  Is  it  not  rather  upheld  and  pervaded 
in  all  its  parts  by  divine  powers,  ideas,  and  purposes,  by 
means  of  which  it  becomes  a  cosmos,  an  harmoniously  articu¬ 
lated  organism,  wherein,  as  in  a  mirror,  we  discern  the  workings 
of  the  Divine  Spirit  ?  And  if  the  world  be  already  in  itself 
a  revelation  of  God,  why  should  not  He  have  been  able  to 
make  it  yet  more  so  by  means  of  special  acts  and  manifesta¬ 
tions  ?  Tlie  consequences,  moreover,  in  reference  to  the 
person  of  Christ,  which  are  involved  in  the  doctrine  of  a 
merely  spiritual  revelation,  are  not  a  little  serious.  Either 
the  incarnation  of  the  Divine  Logos  is  impossible,  or  with 
that  conceded,  the  self-manifestation  of  God  in  a  material 
form  is  conceded  also.  But  once  degrade  our  Lord  to  a  mere 
man,  with  whatever  pretended  illumination  of  the  Spirit,  you 
thereby  deny  all  internal  distinctions  in  the  Divine  Nature,  and 


LECT.  II.] 


ELVEALED  EELIGIOIE 


115 


may  as  well  at  tlie  same  time  deny  the  possibility  of  any  kind 
of  revelation.  The  hrido-e  connectina;  God  and  His  creatures 

O  O 

is  finally  broken  down. 

Another  argument  against  the  possibility  of  revelation  is 
sometimes  drawn  from  the  divine  attributes  of  goodness  and 
righteousness.  How,  it  is  argued,  can  the  infinitely  good  and 
righteous  One  have  attached  salvation  to  the  reception  of 
revealed  verities,  of  which  the  majority  of  mankind  are  igno¬ 
rant  without  any  fault  of  their  own,  and  others  are  cognizant 
without  deservings  ?  This  argument,  strongly  urged  in  former 
times  by  J.  J.  Eousseau,  in  his  Profession  de  foi  du  xicaire 
Savoyard,  is  warmly  echoed  by  many  in  the  present  day,  and 
derives  some  countenance  from  the  harshness  and  onesided¬ 
ness  of  many  Christian  theologians.  But  Scripture  nowhere 
teaches,  that  all  who  die  without  knowledge  of  the  revelation 
of  God  in  Christ  are  irretrievably  and  eternally  lost.  It  is 
one  thing  innocently  not  to  hwiv ;  it  is  quite  another  wilfully 
to  reject.  The  express  doctrine  of  Scripture  is  that  men  will 
be  judged  hereafter  “  according  to  their  works,”  and  that  the 
measure  of  such  judgment  will  be  the  degree  of  revelation, 
supernatural  or  natural,  vouchsafed  them  in  the  present  life  ; 
and  that  hence  from  one  man  more,  from  another  less,  will  be 
required,  and  that  even  among  the  lost  it  will  go  harder  with 
some  and  be  more  tolerable  for  others  (Matt.  xi.  20-24, 
xii.  38-42  ;  Luke  xii.  47,  48  ;  Eom.  ii.  5,  12,  v.  13).  Hor 
are  the  Scriptures  altogether  without  Haces  of  the  thought 
that  the  gospel  was  proffered,  even  after  death,  to  those  who 
had  died  in  ignorance  of  the  way  of  salvation  (1  Pet.  iii. 
18-20,  iv.  6).  But  to  demand  now,  at  once,  an  explanation 
why  the  divine  counsels  determine  that  some  nations  should 
receive  the  gospel  earlier  and  others  later,  is  a  great  act  of 
presumption.  It  will  not  be  till  the  final  development  and 
end  of  the  world  that  it  will  be  possible  to  survey  the  whole 
course  of  God’s  dealings  with  man,  and  so  determine  whether 
the  way  in  which  the  knowledge  of  salvation  has  been  spread 
among  nations,  and  moulded  their  history,  resulted  from 
an  absolutely  wise  and  just  and  holy  plan,  or  not.  Pinally, 
the  divine  attribute  of  goodness  can  be  alleged  as  an  argument 
against  the  probability  of  a  special  revelation  only  by  one  who 
will  not  see  to  how  much  nobler  a  degree  of  moral  and 


116 


KEASOX  AND  EEVELATION. 


[lECT.  II. 


spiritual  elevation  nations  have  attained  with  a  revealed  reli¬ 
gion  than  without  one,  a  fact  the  truth  of  which  no  reasonable 
persons  ought  to  call  in  question. 

But  here  another  objection  meets  ns  from  quite  a  different 
point  of  view.  Granted  the  ‘possibility  of  revelation  in  the 
abstract,  how  can  we  binoio  for  certain  that  it  has  been  vouch¬ 
safed  t  how  are  w’e  to  learn  to  distinguish  between  an  objective 
divine  communication  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  merely  subjec¬ 
tive  operation  of  our  own  intellect  on  the  other  ?  This  is  the 
argument  of  Kant  and  Fichte.  They  allowed  the  possibility 
of  a  supernatural  revelation,  but  denied  that  any  one  could 
determine  with  absolute  certainty  whether  wdiat  seemed  to  him 
to  be  such  was  really  divine,  or  merely  the  product  of  his 
own  reason  and  conscience.  Lessing  (compare  the  “  Dialogue 
between  Lessing  and  Jacobi  about  Spinoza”  in  the  Letters 
to  Mendelssohn,  and  The  Christianity  of  RcasoiC)  gave  this  ob¬ 
jection  a  somewhat  different  turn,  thus  :  Kevealed  truths  must, 
he  argued,  translate  themselves  in  due  course  into  truths  of  pure 
reason.  By  a  law  of  development  proper  to  the  human  mind, 
the  first  form  assumed  by  all  religious  convictions  is  that  of 
an  extraordinary  divine  revelation  ;  it  is  only  by  degrees  that 
man  attains  the  consciousness  that  what  has  seemed  to  him  a 
gift  from  without  was  really  the  product  of  his  own  mental 
powers.  According  to  this,  belief  in  any  supernatural  revela¬ 
tion  is  but  a  piece  of  self-deception  on  the  part  of  the 
undeveloped  human  consciousness,  which,  on  reaching  maturity, 
recognises  the  sources  of  such  supposed  revelation  as  derived 
from  within  and  not  from  without  itself. 

What  is  our  answer  to  all  this  ?  In  the  first  place,  it  may 
readily  be  observed  that  this  objection  proceeds  from  those 
whose  views  are  narrowed  by  the  assumptions  of  mere  intel- 
lectualism,  who  decline  to  accept  any  religious  truth,  except  by 
such  a  process  of  rational  induction  as  we  have  already  proved 
to  be  quite  inadequate.  Hence  their  efforts  to  make  out  that 
revelation  must  be  strictly  spiritual,  the  product  of  the  internal 
workings  of  a  man’s  own  spirit.  And  this  is  the  first  unten¬ 
able  assumption.  For  Scripture  plainly  testifies  that  revela¬ 
tions  were  oftentimes  vouchsafed  of  old  externally,  i.c.  by 
appeals  to  the  senses  of  sight  and  hearing,  as  in  divine  and 
angelic  appearances.  In  such  cases  the  revelation  was  not 


LECT.  II.] 


EEVEALED  RELIGION'. 


117 


in  the  first  place  a  new  idea  which  presented  itself  to  the 
consciousness,  but  a  real  external  event.  Are,  then,  all  such 
narratives  to  be  accounted  a  'priori  as  myths  and  fiibles  ?  If 
not,  these  external  miraculous  events  were  in  themselves  the 
most  certain  proof  that,  in  each  case  of  their  occurrence,  a 
supernatural  communication  from  above  had  been  vouchsafed. 
The  miraculous  element  was  in  each  revelation  the  most  direct 
token  of  its  divine  character.  The  first  recipients  of  such 
manifestations,  under  the  forcible  impression  made  by  the 
accompanying  phenomena,  which  in  sundry  cases  smote  them 
in  terror  to  the  earth,  could  not  remain  in  doubt  that  it  was 
an  outward  objective  power  that  thus  encountered  them,  and 
that  the  awful  words  so  suddenly  sounding  in  their  ears  could 
not  be  mere  ideal  products  of  their  own  minds  ;  they  must 
therefore  have  been  well  able  to  distinguish  between  their 
human  consciousness  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  divine  revela¬ 
tion  vouchsafed  them  on  the  other. 

But  if,  diverting  our  attention  from  these  outward  mani¬ 
festations,  we  direct  it  exclusively  to  those  internal  ones  in 
which  the  element  of  inspiration  prevails,  we  shall  find  that 
even  with  respect  to  these  it  cannot  in  every  case  be  said 
that  what  was  revealed  were  “  mere  rational  conceptions 
concerning  divine  things an  assumption  which  forms  a 
second  untenable  hypothesis.  How  frequently,  for  instance, 
must  the  prophets  have  announced  revelations,  the  depth  of 
which  they  could  not  fathom,  and  delivered  predictions  whose 
range  of  application  was  still  for  them  a  veiled  secret !  Their 
own  oracles  were  oftentimes  as  much  objects  of  faith  to  them¬ 
selves  as  to  others.  How  often  did  they  hear  things  which 
seemed  to  run  counter  to  their  own  natural  reason,  and  about 
which  they  ventured  to  interpose  the  liveliest  expressions  of 
doubt  and  remonstrance  {e.g.  Gen.  xvii.  17 ;  Jer.  i.  6  ;  Luke  i. 
18,  34  ;  Acts  x.  14)  I — instances  in  which  we  clearly  see  that 
the  rational  hnoivlcdge  of  the  recipients  ivas  hy  no  means  always 
in  accord  with  the  revelation  vouehsafed ;  that  the  latter  very 
often  surpassed  the  former,  and  that  the  recipients  were  well 
aware  of  this  distinction.  But  between  the  conclusions  of 
their  own  reason  and  the  truths  revealed,  what  they  could  not 
even  “  rationally  appropriate  ”  could  hardly  have  been  a 
product  of  their  own  rational  faculties.  Only  observe,  for 


118 


rElSOX  AND  DEVELATION. 


[LECT.  II. 


instance,  how  “  the  prophets  inquired  and  searched  diligently  ” 
(with  their  own  natural  faculties  of  reason)  “  what,  or  what 
manner  of  time  the  Sjnrit  of  Christ  which  was  in  them  did 
signify”  (1  Pet.  i.  10,  11);  and  how  clearly  St,  Paul  iiad 
learned  to  distinguish  between  his  own  human  knowledge  and 
divine  revelation  when  he  wrote  (1  Cor.  vii.  12),  “But  to  the 
rest  speak  I,  not  the  Lord;”  and  afterwards  (xi.  23),  “I  have 
received  of  the  Lord!’  Just  as  in  the  case  of  external  mani¬ 
festations,  so  also  in  the  interior  modes  of  revelation,  we 
everywhere  see  it  laid  down  in  Scripture  that  the  seers,  in 
some  way  or  other  which  doubtless  imparted  certainty  to  their 
own  minds,  were  conscious  of  the  fact  that  what  was  inwardly 
perceived  or  heard  by  them  was  not  a  figment  of  their  owm 
fancy,  but  a  real  revelation  from  God. 

Furthermore,  jqro'phccy,  which,  both  in  its  wider  and  its 
narrower  sense,  is  revelation  in  the  form  of  xcord,  as  contrasted 
W'ith  miracle,  which  is  revelation  in  the  form  of  divine  action, 
is  a  second  proof  of  the  divine  reality  of  revelation.  klany 
prophecies,  for  instance,  of  the  Old  Testament  give  practical 
proof,  by  their  punctual  fulfilment  centuries  afterwards,  that 
they  were  ii^leed  revelations  vouchsafed  by  God,  far  transcend¬ 
ing  tlie  powers  of  any  human  calculation.  This  is  more 
especially  the  case  with  some  of  the  Messianic  prophecies, 
which  even  the  presumptuous  criticism  of  the  present  day 
finds  a  difficulty  in  referring  simply  to  historical  events  of  the 
prophets’  own  time.  So  much  at  least  may  be  said  here, 
without  at  present  going  into  further  details ;  to  which  must 
be  added,  as  a  third  argument,  the  testimony  of  the  recipients 
of  inspiration  themselves  to  the  reality  of  the  communications 
vouchsafed  them.  Doubtless — and  this  is  part  of  our  reply 
to  Lessing — that  which  in  the  first  instance  is  a  divine  gift, 
received  by  faith,  becomes  by  degrees  the  subject  of  rational 
apprehension  (“  Credo  ut  intclligam — I  believe,  and  so  come 
to  understand  ”).  Ilevelation  has  a  constant  tendency  to 
become  nature,  that  is,  to  transmute  itself,  as  it  were,  into 
our  human  flesh  and  blood,  and  become  part  of  our  ordinary 
human  intelligence.  But  even  in  this  intellectual  apprehen¬ 
sion  of  revealed  truth, — an  apprehension,  however,  which  is 
by  no  means  merely  intellectual,  but  far  more  practical  and 
moral, — reason  is  so  far  from  ignoring  the  supernatural  origin 


LECT.  II.] 


EEVEALED  KELIGION. 


119 


of  revelation,  or  from  confounding  it  with  any  subjective 
products  of  its  own,  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  longer  it  is 
exercised  in  this  field,  the  more  clearly  does  reason  recognise 
the  divine  and  transcendent  character  of  revealed  truth,  as 
something  supernaturally  communicated  to  our  human  intel¬ 
ligence,  and  not  self-produced  ;  as  something  to  he  gradually 
cqjpropriatcd,  and  not  as  an  original  possession.  Belief,  there¬ 
fore,  in  the  divine  character  of  revelation  is  not  a  standpoint 
which  reason  has  gradually  to  overcome,  but  one  which,  on 
the  contrary,  every  increase  of  spiritual  and  moral  insight  has 
a  constant  tendency  to  illumine  and  corroborate. 

These  remarks  apply  equally  to  the  intellectual  apprehen¬ 
sion  of  the  original  recipients  of  extraordinary  revelations,  and 
to  our  present  knowledge  of  revealed  truth  ■  as  derived  from 
Holy  Scripture.  With  the  preliminary  question,  whether. the 
Bible  reall}?’  contains  the  records  of  a  divine  revelation,  or  is  a 
mere  product  of  human  intelligence,  we  are  not  at  present 
concerned.  The  only  question  we  have  to  deal  with  here  is, 
whether  what  we  call  the  witnes.s  of  the  Spirit  in  our  hearts — 
i.e.  an  inward  consciousness  of  grace,  of  peace,  and  divine 
communion — may  not  after  all  be  merely  subjective,  and  have 
no  producing  cause  beyond  the  operations  of  our  own  minds  ? 

"Whence  canst  thou  know  ” — is  the  question  now  put  to  the 
Christian  man — “  that  thine  inward  experiences  and  enlighten¬ 
ment  are,  in  fact,  the  operations  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  and  so  far 
supernatural  revelations,  and  not  merely  derived  from  thine 
own  mind  ?  Is  not  thy  wliole  faith,  after  all,  nothing  but 
self-deception  ?” 

In  answer  to  all  this  we  reply,  that  Christian  Bevelation  is 
ultimately  based  on  external  matters  of  fact  and  an  objective 
history,  and  not  on  mere  doctrinal  truths.  Christ  Himself,  as 
1  historical  personality,  is  the  great  fact  and  substance  of  His 
own  revelation.  But  Facts,  with  wliich  I  become  acquainted 
by  testimony  from  without,  as  by  hearing  and  reading,  are  quite 
different  souoxes  of  knowledge  from  the  vjorkings  of  my  own 
mind ;  and  I  can  readily  distinguisli  between  the  impression 
made  by  tlu-  former  on  my  heart,  and  the  effect  of  self-inspired 
ideas.  My  own  reflection  is  sufficient  to  teach  me  that  I 
need  and  long  for  something  which  shall  make  me  inwardly 
free  and  happy.  But  the  sense  of  this  longing,  and  s.  conscious- 


120 


KE.VSON  AND  REVELATION. 


[LECT.  II. 


ness  of  its  satisfaction,  are  two  very  different  things  :  in  the  one 
case,  I  have  an  idea;  in  the  other,  o,  fact  of  ecc.periencc.  If,  now, 
I  feel  my  longings  satisfied  by  the  facts  of  the  Christian 
Eeligion,  whereas  hitherto  my  heart  has  been  kept  in  restless 
suspense,  in  spite  of,  nay,  by  reason  of,  all  my  meditation  on 
the  inherent  ideas  of  the  Good  and  the  True,  and  if  I  suddenly 
receive  from  certain  spiritual  experiences  a  pledge,  of  freedom 
and  inward  peace 'which  no  rational  inA^estigation  could  give 
me,  then  surely  I  must  conclude  that  this  neAv  condition 
has  been  brought  about  by  a  Power  from  above,  and  is  no 
mere  creation  of  my  oAvn  fflncy.  I  have,  consequently,  a 
right  to  make  a  distinction  between  an  objective  divine 
revelation  and  the  subjective  action  of  my  OAvn  mind. 

If  any  one  has  once  become  conscious  of  revelation  as  a 
divine  matter  of  fact  in  his  own  heart,  he  can  but  smile  at 
the  efforts  of  reason  to  deprive  him  of  that  fact.  Any 
naturalist  Avho,  Avith  hundreds  of  others,  had  long  observed 
some  phenomenon,  Avould  certainly  laugh  at  the  notion  of  any 
one  proving  to  him  dialectically  that  he  had  really  seen 
nothing.  AVe  Christians  claim  to  avail  ourselves  of  the  same 
right;  for  quite  as  groundless  are  the  objections  raised  against 
the  facts  of  our  religious  consciousness. 

Nor  shall  Ave  be  disturbed  in  our  position  by  the  avcII- 
knoAvn  objection  raised  by  Lessing,  primarily  against  the  “  de¬ 
monstration  of  the  Spirit  and  of  poAver”  (1  Cor.  ii.  4),  but 
in  fact  against  the  possibility  of  proof  in  the  case  of  any 
special  revelation  Avhatsoever,  arguing  that  “  if  no  historical 
truth  can  be  (absolutely)  demonstrated,  nothing  can  be  demon¬ 
strated  by  means  of  historical  truth,”  and  as  a  corollary,  that 
“  incidental  historical  truths  can  never  serve  as  a  proof  of 
necessary  truths  of  reason.”  AVe  do  not  desire  to  hold  any 
long  argument  as  to  the  doubtful  sense  and  ambiguous  Avord- 
ing  of  this  often  cited  dictum}  nor  will  Ave  inquire  Avhat  may 
be  the  nature  of  these  necessary  truths  of  abstract  reason, 
limitations  of  reason  in  the  concrete.  AVe  Avould  only  point 
out  that  at  the  present  day  far  more  importance  is  attached  to 
historical  proof  than  Avas  the  case  in  Lessing’s  age  of  abstract 
philosophy.  Everything  must  noAV  be  first  demonstrated  as 
historical  reality,  before  it  can  put  in  a  claim  to  be  accepted 

*  Refer  tc  the  copious  refutation  of  this  in  Krauss,  ut  svpr.  pp.  95-100, 


LECT.  II.] 


REVEALED  EELIGION. 


121 


as  necessary  truth.  This  is  an  axiom  of  all  modern  science, 
natural  science  especially  establishing  all  its  general  prin¬ 
ciples  by  means  of  particular  empirical  facts.  Why  should 
not  the  same  be  permitted  in  the  sphere  of  religion  ?  Care¬ 
fully  examined,  Lessing’s  utterance  comes  simply  to  this,  that 
the  Incidental  cannot  be  alleged  in  proof  of  the  Eternal.  We 
submit  tliat  this  argument,  however  incontestable,  does  not  in 
the  least  affect  the  point  here  at  issue,  viz.  the  proof  from 
history  and  inward  experiences.  For  where  will  you  find  a 
Christian  who  considers  God’s  revelations  in  history  and  the 
facts  of  his  own  spiritual  experience  as  merely  incidental,  and 
not  rather  as  the  carrying  out  of  eternal  purposes  ?  “  Are 

not  all  His  works  known  to  God  from  the  beginning  of  the 
wmrld  ?”  If,  howmver,  as  is  usually  the  case,  the  sense 
attributed  to  Lessing’s  words  is,  that  no  particular  historical 
events  can,  in  preference  to  any  others,  be  regarded  as  the 
revelation  of  eternal  truths;  that  God  equally  reveals  Himself 
in  all  that  happens  according  to  eternal  and  immutable  laws, 
wdiich  render  any  special  interference  a  thing  unimaginable, 
and  that,  consequently,  single  events  are  only  of  incidental  im¬ 
portance, — we  reply  that  this  is  simply  the  rationalistic  view, 
the  untenableness  of  which  we  shall  presently  exhibit  in  detail. 

As  in  the  experience  of  individuals,  so  in  the  entire  history 
of  the  race,  Eevelation  is  most  clearly  Icnoivn  Inj  its  fruits. 
The  final  and  surest  proof  of  the  actuality  and  divine  origin 
of  revelation,  is  its  manifestation  in  individuals  and  nations, 
as  a  healing,  sin-constraining  power,  diffusing  everywhere 
light  and  life.  This  is  in  truth  the  case,  and  so  evidently  do 
the  representatives  of  revealed  religion  excel  all  their  contem¬ 
poraries  in  moral  and  religious  force  and  insight,  as  to  furnish 
a  weighty  and  indisputable  argument  against  the  rejecters  of 
revelation.  Let  them  explain  to  us  how,  loitJwiit  revelation, 
amidst  the  general  obscuration  of  religious  life,  an  Abraham 
could  arise  and  shed  abroad  his  light  of  faith ;  or  the  people  of 
Israel,  in  the  midst  of  heathen  degradation,  and  surrounded 
by  lascivious  and  cruel  idolatries,  discover  and  preserve  such 
pure  ideas  of  God,  and  so  holy  a  moral  law.  Let  them  show 
further,  how,  in  a  period  of  universal  corruption  among  both 
Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  without  any  supernatural  interposi¬ 
tion,  Christ  could  arise  as  the  Light  of  the  world  and  give  its 


122 


REASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[lect.  II. 


whole  development  a  new  direction,  even  down  to  tlie  present 
day,  in  the  path  of  light  and  life  !  All,  even  the  most  pains¬ 
taking  recent  attempts  to  prove  a  natural  and  human  origin 
of  these  phenomena,  have,  as  we  shall  see  further  on,  turned 
out  completely  inadequate.  The  wondrous  ttniquencss  of  the 
facts  themselves,  and  the  blessings  wliich  have  issued  from 
them,  will  ever  constitute  an  irrefragable  proof  of  the  divine 
origin  of  revelation. 

Hearing  this  in  mind,  what  shall  we  say  to  the  bold  asser¬ 
tion  of  Kant  and  his  successors,  that  any  revealed  divine 
legislation,  in  addition  to  the  law  already  recognised  by  reason 
and  conscience,  would  be  not  merely  unnecessary  and,  psycho¬ 
logically  speaking,  unverifiable,  but  even  positively  injurious ; 
that  free  men,  whose  whole  life  should  be  guided  by  reason 
and  conscience,  would  be  reduced  to  moral  slavery  if  “  bur¬ 
dened  ”  with  a  new  law  in  addition  to  that  already  received  ? 
That  this  assertion  contains  nearly  as  man}^  errors  as  words,  is 
evident,  we  trust,  from  what  has  been  already  said  as  to  the 
insufficiency  of  Katural  Theology  and  the  true  character  and 
need  of  Eevelation.  Only  those  who  do  not  acknowledge  the 
power  of  sin  can  thus  speak.  But  how  grievously,  likewise, 
is  the  inner  nature  of  Eevelation  here  misunderstood  ?  Why, 
it  belongs  to  the  very  nature  of  Eevelation  not  to  appear  as  a 
compulsory  law,  but  ever  to  appeal  to  human  freedom  I  And 
is  not  its  effect,  when  inwardly  experienced,  a  liberation  from 
bondage  rather  than  the  imposition  of  a  fresh  yoke  ?  Eevela¬ 
tion  aids,  purifies,  and  supplements  Natural  Theology,  does  not, 
as  an  alien  element,  hinder  and  oppose  it,  but  rather  links 
itself  on  to  the  whole  circle  of  our  other  ideas.  As  it  is,  the 
Moral  Law  taken  alone  is  found  insufficient  by  Kant  himself, 
who  is  fain  to  call  in  the  aid  of  conceptions  concerning  God 
and  His  government  of  the  world  in  order  to  its  maintenance. 
How  can  he  regard  the  influence  of  the  divine  Will  on  man  as 
a  burdening  of  the  conscience,  whilst  elsewhere  he  makes  it 
appear  as  a  help  ?  He  confounds — a  mistake  that  cannot  be 
‘too  strongly  deprecated — certain  ecclesiastical  forms  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  with  its  living  spirit  and  essence.  The  former  may 
frequently  be  a  burden,  but  not  so  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord, 
which  is  indeed  a  Spirit  of  liberty  (2  Cor.  iii.  17).  He 
forgets  that  this  Lord  communicates  and  reveals  Himself,  not 


LECT.  II.] 


EEVEALED  EELIGION. 


123 


mechanically,  or  as  a  Lawgiver  of  the  letter,  hut  through  the 
Spirit,  which  operates  in  our  souls,  liberating,  purifying,  en¬ 
lightening,  and  stimulating  all  that  is  good  in  us,  especially 
ill  the  faculties  of  reason  and  conscience,  but  burdening  and 
restricting  only  what  is  evil. 

And  thus,  also,  is  refuted  the  objection  made  by  Strauss, 
that  Eevelation,  as  “  a  direct  action  of  God  upon  the  human 
spirit,  would  leave  the  latter  in  a  position  of  absolute  passivity, 
God  being,  by  His  own  nature,  absolutely  active ;  but  the 
essence  of  the  human  spirit  consisting  in  activity,  it  is  not 
capable  of  becoming  absolutely  passive,  and  that,  consequently, 
the  very  idea  of  revelation  is  impossible.”  This  conclusion, 
too,  is  based  on  entirely  false  premises.  In  the  first  place, 
the  above-named  definition  by  no  means  exhaustively  describes 
the  essence  of  revelation.  And  where  do  we  find  taimht  in 

O 

the  Scriptures  that  there  is  any  such  direct  influence  of 
the  divine  activity  on  the  recipient  of  revelation  as  would 
thus  put  a  stop  to  his  own,  and  merge  it  in  absolute 
passivity?  According  to  Scripture  (as  we  have  seen),  God  is 
not  wont  to  work  directly  on  man,  but  through  some  kind  of 
medium.  The  recipients  of  revelation  are  of  course  receptive, 
but  not  absolutely  passive.  On  the  contrary,  the  very  recep¬ 
tion  of  divine  communications,  requiring  a  certain  amount 
of  activity,  stimulates  all  their  mental  and  moral  energies  to 
the  highest  degree.  God,  in  drawing  nigh  to  any  individual 
man,  has  no  desire  to  crush,  but  rather  to  awaken  and  carry 
onward  him,  and  through  him,  others.  Even  divine  com¬ 
missions  are  not  to  be  accepted  and  executed  in  a  spirit  of 
absolute  passivity ;  and  in  the  recipients  of  revelation  (cf. 
Jer.  i.  6  and  Jonah  i.  2,  3)  their  human  freedom  remains 
unfettered.  How  many  opponents  of  revelation  are  still 
fighting  against  an  idea  which  is  not  that  of  the  Scriptures 
themselves  ! 

The  groundlessness  of  the  various  objections  to  Eevelation 
having  been  thus  shown,  it  remains  for  us  now  to  take  in 
review — • 


124 


REASON  AND  EEVELATION. 


[LECT.  II. 


III. - THE  RELATION  BETWEEN  REVEALED  RELIGION  AND 

NATURAL  THEOLOGY. 

Does  the  knowledge  of  God  derived  from  Eevelation  stand 
in  any  w’ay  in  contradiction  to  Natural  Theology,  so  that  one 
excludes  the  other  ?  And  if  we  allow  that  they  agree,  and 
indeed  postulate  each  other,  for  which  of  these  two  factors 
must  we  claim  precedence  ? 

Eeason  and  revelation  have  of  late  very  often  been  placed 
in  opposition  to  each  other,  because  the  existence  of  a  corre¬ 
sponding  antithesis  hetxoeen  faith  and  hiowlcclge  ^  is  taken  for 
granted.  The  assumption  of  this  antithesis  is  now  so  general, 
that  there  are  not  a  few  even  among  Christians  who  accept  it. 

With  the  head  a  heathen,  at  heart  a  Christian,”  as  Jacobi  has 
put  it — this  is  the  conclusion  at  wdiich  they  would  wish  to 
stop,  allotting  to  faith  the  feelings,  to  knowledge  the  under¬ 
standing  and  reason,  as  their  exclusive  domain.  It  is  high 
time  that  this  fundamental  error,  the  consequences  of  which 
are  for  the  most  part  good-naturedly  overlooked,  should  at  lust 
be  recognised  as  such.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  certainly 
psychologically  impossible  to  sever  feeling  and  understanding 
as  opposed  to  one  another.  No  one  faculty  of  the  soul  can 
be  brought  into  action  separately  without  the  others  being  at 
the  same  time  exercised.  In  every  act  of  the  understanding, 
feeling  and  wdll  are  more  or  less  involved ;  and  feeling  itself 
when  perfected  is  one  with  understanding.  We  may  well 
distinguish  between  the  different  functions  of  the  soul,  but 
we  must  not  sever  them  from  each  other. 

The  same  relation  exists  between  faith  and  knowledge.  The 
severance  of  the  tw'o,  as  mutually  excluding  opposites,  indi¬ 
cates  a  superficial  tone  of  thought.  For  all  hnowledeje  is,  in 
the  last  instance,  conditioned  hy  faith ;  and  faith  {i.c.  an  act  of 
belief)  is  the  'preliminary  and  the  medium  of  every  act  of  intelli¬ 
gence.  Are  you  surprised  at  this  proposition  ?  The  usual 
rationalistic  axiom  is  certainly  the  reverse  of  it, — namely,  that 
everything  must  first  be  proved  and  known  before  it  can  be 
believed.  The  superficiality  of  this  axiom  may,  however,  be 

*  On  tlie  following,  cf.  tlie  excellent  elucidation  of  the  question  in  Fabri’s 
Briefe  gegen  den  Material'ismus,  2d  ed.  pp.  164-190. 


LECT.  II.J 


EELATION  BETWEEN  THEM. 


125 


readily  perceived.  Is  not  every  act  of  knowledge  based  upon 
an  act  of  faith, — namely,  the  belief  that  we  are,  and  that  we 
think  1  This  fact  is  always  presupposed.  But  on  what  does 
its  certainty  depend  ?  On  our  thinking  ?  Can  this  possibly 
prove  its  own  actuality  ?  Would  not  this  be  to  move  in  a 
circle,  and  presuppose  that  which  is  to  be  proved  ?  The 
certainty  of  our  thinking  depends  simply  on  an  act  of  belief. 
Just  as  the  eye  never  sees  itself,  but  only  the  outward  form 
of  itself,  so  also  the  self-knowing  of  the  mind  is  not  a  self- 
beholding,  but  “  an  ideal  cognizance,  a  radical  though  mediated 
knowledge,  i.e.  scire  creclendo”  (Delitzsch),  a  knowledge  mediated 
by  faith.  It  is  by  the  direct  testimony  of  our  own  minds  that 
we  are  convinced  of  the  fact  that  we  exist,  think,  wake,  and 
dream  ;  and  this  fact  neither  needs  nor  is  capable  of  proof ;  we 
merely  believe  it. 

Or  w'hat  is  the  case  with  learning  ?  In  every  act  of 
learning,  must  not  a  believing  be  presui^posed,  some  belief  in 
the  authority  of  the  teacher,  and  in  the  truth  of  that  which 
is  taimht  ?  He  who  does  not  start  with  tliis  belief  will  never 

o 

learn  anything.  And  does  not  all  philosophizing  depend  on 
faith  ?  If  a  philosopher  does  not  believe  in  the  wisdom  with 
which  the  world  is  filled,  he  cannot  be  a  lover  of  wisdom. 
When  a  philosopher  presumes  to  look  down  on  faitli,  it  is  a 
proof  that  he  does  not  know  on  what  ground  he  himself  is 
standing.  And  in  every  single  act  of  cognition,  does  not 
belief  form  a  connecting  link  necessary  to  its  completion  ?  In 
every  cognition  of  a  sensible  object,  the  first  decisive  step  is 
tlie  sensuous  perception  ;  the  second,  often  so  momentary  as  to 
be  scarcely  perceptible,  is  the  inward  affirmation  of  this  per¬ 
ception,  the  belief  in,  and  acknowledgment  of,  the  testimony 
of  the  senses ;  then,  and  not  till  then,  follows  the  logical  con¬ 
clusion.  It  is  just  so  with  intellectual  cognitions  directed  to 
tlie  supersensuous.  In  tliis,  also,  the  first  point  is  an  inward 
intellectual  perception,  the  second  an  assent  to  or  affirmation 
of  it ;  whereupon  follows  the  cognition  properly  so-called. 

From  this  you  see  that  faith  is  really  a  preliminary  and  a 
medium  of  all  cognizance,  and  that  all  knowing  is  conditioned 
by  an  act  of  believing.  He  v:ho  believes  nothing,  knows  nothing. 
“  As  its  ultimate  basis,  even  the  most  radical  unbelief  has  one 
and  the  same  principle  of  knowledge  with  Christianity  and 


126 


EEASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[lect.  it. 


every  other  positive  religion, — the  principle  of  belief  in  given 
matters  of  fact,  on  the  ground  of  the  original  and  direct  testi¬ 
mony  of  the  human  mind  ”  (Fabri).  He  who  believes  this — 
and  every  one  must  do  so — will  find  it  a  contradiction  to 
reject  the  testimony  of  Christian  and  religious  consciousness 
to  the  existence  and  the  inward  experience  of  some  super- 
sensuous  world.  The  existence  of  this,  as  of  the  material 
world,  can  never  be  proved  by  mere  reasoning ;  to  this  must 
be  added  an  experience  based  on  belief.  If  such  testimony  is 
allowed  to  be  valid  as  regards  the  material  world,  why  not  as 
regards  the  supersensuous  ? 

Our  former  remarks  as  to  the  certainty  of  an  inwardly 
experienced  fact  of  revelation  are  thus  afresh  corroborated. 
He  who  experiences  in  his  own  mind  God’s  testimony  of 
Flimself  as  the  living,  holy,  and  gracious  One,  may  take  his 
stand  upon  this  as  a  matter  of  fact,  with  as  good  a  right  as 
the  naturalist  on  his  experimental  observations.  For  both 
attain  their  experimental  knowledge  on  the  same  principle  of 
belief. 

A  like  view  of  the  relation  between  faith  and  knowledge 
is  found  in  Holy  Scripture,  which  recognises  no  true  knowledge 
except  such  as  is  grounded  on  belief.  True  faith,  according 
to  Scripture,  conducts  the  human  soul  not  only  to  peace  and 
joy,  but  also  to  light  and  truth.  It  is  the  apprehension  of 
divine  truth  which  depends  on  one  suffering  himself  to  be 
apprehended  ;  it  is  the  saying  “  Yea  and  Amen  ”  thereto,  and 
is  accomplished  and  perfected  in  the  most  intimate  surrender  of 
the  heart,  resulting,  as  does  all  perception  and  experience,  in  real 
knowledge.  Peter  says  (John  vi.  69),  “  JFe  have  helievcd  and 
are  sure:"  faith  leads  on  to  linowlcdge,  of  which  it  is  itself  the 
first  beginning.  As  an  undoubtinef  and  assured  conviction  of 
the  unseen  (Heb.  xi.  I),  it  is  the  organ  for  the  immaterial 
world,  and  for  our  knovdedge  of  it.  It  is  not  therefore  hnoiv- 
Icdge  tut  nnhelief  ivhich  is  opposed  to  faith;  that  is,  the  resolve 
neither  to  accept  nor  to  be  convinced  of  the  reality  of  the 
supersensuous  and  its  influence  on  the  world.  For  this  postu¬ 
late,  the  reality  of  the  Invisible  is  the  ultimate  point  at  which 
faiU  and  unbelief  part  company,  and  at  which  there  is  no 
alternative  except  either  belief  or  unbelief.  In  religious 
things,  therefore,  the  antithesis  is  not  that  of  faith  and  hnow- 


LECT.  II.] 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THEM. 


127 


ledge,  hut  that  of  faith  and  unhelief,  or  of  religions  knowledge 
and  religious  ignorance ;  or  again,  yet  more  often  of  religious 
belief  and  knowledge  on  the  one  hand,  and  irreligious  belief 
and  knowledge  on  the  other. 

From  all  this,  we  may  now  gather  the  right  view  of  the 
relation  between  Revealed  Religion  and  Natural  Theology. 
Revelation  and  reason,  no  more  than  faith  and  hnowledge,  ean 
in  'prineijfle  contradict  one  another.  Reason  cannot  object  if 
we  derive  our  knowledge  of  God  in  a  supernatural  way,  since, 
as  we  have  seen,  faith  is  the  principle  of  knowledge  in  both 
cases.  As  far,  however,  as  regards  the  substance  of  the 
knowledge  thus  arrived  at,  whether  by  means  of  Natural  or 
Revealed  Theology,  we  find  as  the  result  that  the  one  postu¬ 
lates  the  other,  and  for  this  reason  the  two  theologies  cannot 
be  considered  as  opposed.  Reason,  especially  when  under 
the  influence  of  sin,  shows,  by  the  imperfection  of  its  ideal 
products  as  exhibited  in  history,  how  much  it  stands  in  need 
of  the  guidance,  regulation,  and  assistance  of  Divine  Revelation. 
Reason  and  faith  are,  in  tlrp  divine  order  of  things,  destined 
as  it  were  to  a  spiritual  wedlock,  in  which  faith  shall  be  the 
masculine  and  productive,  reason  the  feminine  and  receptive 
power.  Faith,  from  the  invisible  world  in  which  it  lives, 
must  bring  the  truths  unattainable  by  reason  and  impart 
them  to  her ;  while  reason,  thus  fructified  and  invigorated,  is 
enabled  to  search  into  the  ultimate  grounds  and  inner  essence 
of  the  objects  of  religious  knowledge,  to  connect,  systematize, 
and  duly  arrange  tliem.  But  if,  without  the  aid  of  her  lord 
and  master,  she  endeavour  to  obtain  for  herself  the  materials 
of  religious  thought,  we  must,  in  view  of  all  the  independent 
efforts  of  merely  rational  theology  in  ancient  and  modern 
times,  agree  with  the  utterance  of  Matthias  Claudius,  that  he 
“  found  it  much  more  difficult  to  vindicate  the  wisdom  of 
reason  against  faith,  than  that  of  faith  against  reason,”  or  with 
the  Scotch  sceptic,  when  he  says,  that  “  the  ultimate  fruit  of 
all  philosophy  is  the  observation  of  human  ignorance  and 
weakness  ”  (Hume).  In  fine,  might  we  not  almost  express 
the  result  of  our  investigation  in  the  words  of  Hamann, — that 
“  dark  philosopher  of  the  North,”  Kant’s  contemporary  and 
fellow-townsman, — “As  the  law  was  given  to  the  Jews,  not 
to  make  them  rigliteous,  but  to  convict  them  of  unrighteous- 


128 


EEASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[LECT.  II. 


ness,  so  in  the  same  ^yay  reason  was  given  to  our  race,  not  to 
make  us  wise,  but  to  convict  us  of  our  own  ignorance ;  so 
that  errors  might  thereby  be  multiplied  as  sin  was  strengthened 
by  the  law  ”  ?  ^ 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  Eevelation  no  less*  requires  the 
co-operation  of  reason  and  conscience,  with  which,  by  its  own 
inherent  ethical  laws  and  purposes,  it  is  necessarily  connected. 
Every  particular  revelation  is  based  upon  and  fits  into  tlie 
universal  and  natural,  the  religious  and  moral  elements  of 
which  it  receives  and  adapts  in  order  to  give  them  farther 
development,  and  impart  to  them  a  higher  substance.  If,  for 
instance.  Conscience  is  able  of  itself  in  some  measure  to 
recognise  the  justice  of  God,  Eevelation  leads  it  to  a  compre¬ 
hension  of  His  absolute  holiness.  If  in  nature  and  in  history 
we  find  some  traces  of  a  ruling  providence,  the  observation  is 
amplified  by  Eevelation  into  the  assurance  that  such  a  pro¬ 
vidence  extends  to  all,  even  the  most  trivial-seeming  circum¬ 
stances  of  each  individual  life.  When  a  consideration  of  tlie 
world  and  of  ourselves  has  brought  home  to  us  the  necessity 
of  some  divine  assistance  against  the  universal  corruption  of 
death,  Eevelation  steps  in  and  tells  us  of  redemption  accom¬ 
plished,  and  of  the  way  to  salvation.  By  no  means  does  it 
set  aside  Hatural  Theology  as  useless,  nor  does  it  desire — no 
matter  how  often  the  reproach  may  be  made — either  to  restrict 
or  to  suppress  the  ojoerations  of  reason  and  conscience,  but  only, 
on  the  contrary,  to  elevate,  enlarge,  and  render  them  more  acute. 
Eevelation,  it  is  true,  would  have  reason  “  made  captive  to 
the  obedience  of  Christ;”  not,  however,  in  order  to  render  it 
blind,  but  to  enable  it  to  see  more  clearly,  and  to  make  it 
really  serviceable  and  efficacious  by  liberating  it  from  the  bond¬ 
age  of  error  (John  viii.  32).  This  submission  only  takes  place 
to  be  followed  by  an  exaltation ;  it  is  nothing  but  the  transi¬ 
tion  to  a  knowledge  all  the  higher  and  purer,  and  a  use  of  reason 
all  the  more  powerful.  Hence  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  “  When 
I  am  weak,  then  am  I  strong.”  The  act  of  submission  brings 
with  it  the  reception  of  light,  and  the  communication  of  a  fuller 
moral  and  religious  knowledge,  thus  producing  sound  and 

*  Collected  Works,  i.  p.  405  ff.  On  tlie  details  of  this,  cf.  the  talented  and 
instructive  lecture  of  Grau,  “  Ueher  den  Gkiichen  als  die  hochste  VernwnJ’l” 
{Beweis  des  Glauhem,  1865,  p.  110  If.). 


I.ECT.  IT.] 


EELA.TION  BETWEEN  THEM. 


129 


enlightened  views  on  all  fundamental  points,  such  as  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  God,  the  world,  the  destination  of  man,  sin  and  its 
cure; — views  which  must  lead  to  a  sound  practical  judgment, 
and  a  conformable  course  of  life.  So  far,  therefore,  from  faith 
Toeing  unreason,  it  is  in  truth  the  highest  form  of  reason,  and  the 
only  way  to  progressive  perfection  of  the  intellect.  Innumer¬ 
able  instances  might  be  adduced  to  prove  this  power  of  faith 
in  thoroughly  cultivating  and  infinitely  raising  our  moral 
intuitions.  The  fact  that  the  opponents  of  revelation  so  often 
reproach  its  defenders  with  “  oToseurantismS  only  goes  to  prove 
that  they  completely  misapprehend  the  nature  and  the  effects 
of  faith. 

And,  as  in  the  case  of  individuals,  so  also  in  that  cf  the 
whole  race  and  its  Natural  Theology,  Eevelation  merely  steps 
in  to  its  aid,  setting  up,  as  it  were,  landmarks  for  necessary 
guidance  in  the  region  of  moral  and  religious  thought,  and 
supplying  a  support  for  human  infirmity  in  a  few  funda¬ 
mental  facts  and  truths ;  its  purpose  being  to  indicate  to  men, 
by  a  few  master-strokes,  their  divine  destiny  and  the  way  to 
its  fulfilment ;  and  that  not  in  order  to  perplex,  but  to  en¬ 
lighten  ;  not  to  bring  into  bondage,  but  to  lead  aright,  to  save 
from  wandering  in  endless  aimless  labyrinths,  and  at  the  same 
time  guide  investigation  of  the  traces  of  Divine  Eevelation  in 
the  world,  in  history,  and  in  Scripture,  and,  in  a.  word,  assist 
the  search  after  their  underlying  unity.  Nor,  in  good  sooth, 
does  Eeason  forfeit  aught  of  her  dignity  in  thankfully  accept¬ 
ing  such  assistance.  If  this  assistance  came  from  an  inferior, 
lieason  might  find  some  excuse  for  despising  it.  But  surely 
no  creature  need  to  be  ashamed  of  help  from  its  Creator;  it 
does  but  honour  itself  in  accepting  it.  “  True  Christianity,” 
says  Pascal,  “  consists  in  the  submission  as  well  as  in  the  use 
of  reason.  It  is  Eeason’s  last  step  to  acknowledge  that  there 
is  an  infinity  of  things  which  transcend  her  powers.  She 
remains  weak  till  she  comes  to  the  acknowledgment  of  this 
her  own  insufficiency.  Doubt  and  assert  we  all  must  at 
times,  but  must  learn  at  proper  times  to  submit  also.  He 
who  cannot  do  this,  knows  not  yet  the  true  strength  of 
Eeason.” 

And  that  brings  us  to  the  right  point  of  view  from  which  to 
decide  the  last  question, — To  which  of  the  two  must  we  con- 

1 


130 


REASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[lECT.  II. 


cede  the  superiority  when  Eeason  and  Eevelation  diverge 
from  one  another  ?  Although  they  are  not,  as  we  have  seen, 
opposed  in  principle,  still  in  certain  cases  the  teachings  of 
Eevelation  frequently  lie  so  far  beyond  the  scope  of  Eeason  as 
to  make  her  slow  to  accept  them.  In  this  case,  rationalism 
would  make  Eeason  the  superior  judge,  and  accept  only  that 
which  can  be  logically  demonstrated.  Here  we  see  a  growing 
faculty  that  is  ever  changing,  and  constantly  requires  fresh 
material,  without  ever  coming  to  maturity,  put  forward  claims 
which  would  presuppose  it  complete  and  perfect.  Instead  of 
this,  we  gather  from  the  preceding  that  the  only  true  view  is 
that  which  subordinates  reason  to  revelation.  Hot,  First  under¬ 
stand  and  then  accept,  is  the  maxim  to  be  adopted  in  seeking 
religious  truth,  but.  First  submit  and  accept  the  truth,  then 
you  will  be  able  to  obtain  a  thorough  intellectual  knowledge 
of  it.  Finite  reason  must  submit  itself  to  infinite ;  the  never 
fully  educated  human  understanding,  limited  as  it  is  by  time, 
matter,  and  individuality,  must  yield  to  the  perfect  truth 
which  proceeds  from  God;  a  judgment  which  is  subject  to 
vacillations  and  disturbances,  to  one  that  is  ever  settled  and 
abiding.  “  To  improve  religion  by  means  of  reason,”  exclaims 
Claudius  on  one  occasion,  “appears  to  me  just  as  if  I  were  to 
try  to  set  the  sun  by  my  old  wooden  clock.” 

Let  Eeason  ever  remain  mindful  of  her  own  limitations. 
Let  her  not  summon  everything  before  her  judgment-seat 
alone,  especially  questions,  the  final  decision  of  which  belongs 
to  the  moral  feelings  and  the  will.  Let  her  especially  cease  to 
confound  that  which  is  above  reason  with  that  which  is  against 
reason :  an  error  fraught  with  evil  consequences  for  so  many. 
Those  parts  of  revelation  which  it  is  beyond  the  power  of 
Eeason  fully  to  comprehend — such  as  miraculous  facts  and 
the  mysteries  of  faith — are  presented  to  her  not  as  absurdities 
to  be  laughed  at  and  rejected,  as  is  often  done  by  intellectually 
slothful  and  superficial  Unbelief,  but  as  deep  and  earnest  pro¬ 
blems,  which  it  is  our  solemn  duty  to  investigate,  although  to 
master  them  a  whole  life-time,  yea,  eternities,  were  requisite. 
Mysteries  like  these,  which  in  this  life  we  cannot  fully  com¬ 
prehend,  need  by  no  means  fill  us  with  mistrust  of  faith 
For  “if  all  life  has  its  mysteries,  how  much  more  the  highest 
life  !  It  all  turns  upon  the  question  whether  Eeason  recognises 


LECT.  II.] 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THEM. 


131 


faith  as  life,  and,  indeed,  the  highest  form  of  life,”  and  has 
learnt  to  see  that  everywhere  the  higher  life  transcends  the 
laws  of  the  lower,  and,  so  that  no  higher  form  of  being  can  be 
cominehcndecl  by  the  lav:s  ivhich  regulate  those  beneath  it  (see 
Lect.  V.,  on  Miracles).  Let  Eeason  therefore  seek  in  herself, 
and  not  in  faith  or  in  revelation,  as  such,  the  cause  of  what 
is  obscure  and  incomprehensible ;  and  let  her  conclude,  from 
that  which  she  has  learnt  to  see  of  revelation,  as  to  the  truth 
and  excellence  of  that  which  still  seems  dark  to  her.  Let 
her  endeavour  to  bring  light  into  this  obsenrit}^  as  far  as  pos¬ 
sible,  not,  however,  in  a  merely  intellectual  way,  but  first  of 
all  in  that  which  revelation  itself  indicates  as  indispensable, 
the  vmy  of  moral  action  and  obedience  (John  v.  17).  If, 
without  pursuing  this  course,  she  seeks  to  appropriate  super¬ 
natural  truths,  she  will  never  attain  her  end.  Only,  let  her 
not  say  that  these  truths  are  incredible  and  irrational,  since 
she  will  not  take  the  one  possible  way  to  understand  and 
appropriate  them. 

If,  on  the  contrary,  Eeason  would  only  seek  in  the  right 
way  to  penetrate  into  the  mysteries  of  revelation,  she  wmuld, 
with  regard  to  much  that  might  be  new  to  her,  and  which 
she  never  could  deduce  from  her  own  premises,  be  enabled, 
as  it  were,  to  follow  the  divine  thought  and  sympathize  with 
the  divine  intention ;  to  recognise  what  was  at  first  incompre¬ 
hensible  to  her  more  and  more  in  its  wisdom  and  fitness,  and, 
indeed,  as  the  expression  of  the  highest  Eeason,  as  the  most 
certainly  and  absolutely  True.  In  this  way  the  objective  facts 
of  revelation  would  be  ever  growing  more  subjectively  certain, 
and  the  original  difference  between  the  two  would  be  tending 
more  and  more  to  disappear. 

But  what,  in  all  conscience,  gives  Eeason  a  right  to  reject 
historically  attested  matters  of  fact,  merely  because  she  is 
unable  to  derive  and  prove  them  directly  from  her  own  con¬ 
sciousness,  or  because  she  cannot  forthwith  understand  them, 
while  there  are  millions  who  testify  that,  in  their  case,  the 
conviction  of  their  truth  only  gradually  dawmed  upon  tliem  ? 
The  same  is  the  case  with  Conscience.  Let  him  who  would 
make  conscience  the  criterion  of  revelation  show  us  first  of 
all — a  much  more  difficult  task  than  is  generally  supposed — 
what  there  is  in  the  witness  of  conscience  that  is  so  special, 


132 


EEASON  AND  EEVELATION. 


[lect.  II. 


independent,  and  immutable  as  to  constitute  it  the  measure  of 
the  truth  of  revelation.  Let  him  show  us,  further,  that  those 
portions  of  revelation  which  conscience  would  reject  are  really 
of  immoral  tendency,  and  run  counter  to  our  inherent  sense  of 
right.  If  our  previous  delineation  of  the  character  of  reve¬ 
lation  has  shown  that  this  is  impossible,  and  if  history  irre¬ 
futably  proves  that  conscience  in  itself  has  no  adequate 
guarantee  against  constant  vacillations  and  errors,  then  surely 
it  is  sufficiently  clear  that  conscience  must  he  subordinate  to  the 
revealed  Word  as  its  fixed  rule  and  guiding-star.  Do  we  not 
perceive  this  in  ourselves  ?  Honestly  speaking !  must  we 
not  confess  that  our  conscience  is  always  clearer,  tenderer, 
and  more  acute  when  we  open  it  to  the  influence  of  revela¬ 
tion  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  it  is  always  duller,  laxer, 
and  more  obscure  when  we  witlidraw  it  from  that  influence  ? 
Is  not  this  again  a  proof  that  conscience  must  be  guided 
and  enlightened  by  revelation,  and  not  vice  versa  ?  But 
clearly,  whatever  a  thing  is  guided  by,  to  that  it  must  be 
subordinatBi 

True  enough,  it  has  been  maintained,  in  order  to  claim  for 
conscience  greater  fixedness  of  character,  that  it  is  the  con¬ 
science  of  the  whole  hodg  of  Christians,  and  not  that  of 
individuals,  which  is  to  be  the  rule  and  measure  of  revelation. 
But  who  will  show  us  this  collective  conscience  ?  What 
differences  would  not  present  themselves  on  inquiry  between 
the  collective  consciences  of  various  Christian  churches  ? 
And  would  not  whatever  they  might  hold  in  common  be  the 
fruit  of  the  one  revelation  ?  Is  the  Christian  conscience  to 
sit  in  judgment  on  that  from  which  it  has  virtually  sprung? 
The  truth  is,  that  the  conscience  even  of  whole  nations  and 
churches  is  subject  to  great  obscurations  and  disturbances,  as 
we  have  previously  hinted.  How  blinded,  for  instance,  was 
the  collective  Christian  conscience  of  the  Southern  States  of 
Xorth  America  with  regard  to  the  question  of  slavery  ?  If 
revelation  did  not  form  the  criterion  of  our  belief,  we  should 
have  no  firm  ground  to  stand  upon.  To  make  conscience 
the  measure  of  our  faith,  is  simply  “  to  degrade  the  great¬ 
ness  of  divine  thoughts  to  the  narrowness  and  smallness  of 
liuman." 

Bevelation  is  for  our  theology  what  the  telescope  is  for 


LECT.  II.]  RELATION  BETWEEN  THEM.  133 

our  knowledge  of  the  stars,  and  bears  the  same  relation  to 
reason  and  conscience  as  the  telescope  does  to  the  naked  eye. 
One  in  either  case  requires  the  other.  The  telescope  enhances, 
sharpens,  and  extends  the  powers  of  the  natural  eye,  but 
demands  at  the  same  time  its  full  activity.  Any  one  who 
should  study  astronomy  without  the  use  of  the  telescope 
would  attain  some  slight  degree  of  knowledge,  but  many 
thousand  stars  and  beauties  of  the  heavens  would  escape  his 
observation.  So  he  who  would  know  God  without  the  aid  of 
revelation  must  suffer  from  the  same  poverty  and  insecurity 
in  his  religious  knowledge.  But  just  as  the  uncertain  testi¬ 
mony, of  the  naked  eye  is  subordinate  to  the  clearer  testimony 
of  the  assisted  vision,  so  should  it  be  with  natural  knowledjTe 
in  comparison  with  the  witness  of  revelation.  And  if,  on 
account  of  the  imperfection  of  our  thoughts  as  well  as  of  our 
belief,  the  combined  testimony  of  both  leaves  many  lacunoe 
unfilled,  yet  these  lacunae  are  by  no  means  contradictions. 
And  even  if  Natural  and  Eevealed  Theology  are  now  found 
in  several  respects  to  diverge  from  one  another,  ye.t  a  day  is 
certainly  coming  when  their  union  ivill  be  comiolcte.  Eevelation 
and  nature  are  developing  towards  one  great  goal  at  which 
they  will  coalesce.  The  perfecting  of  the  one  is  that  of  the 
other.  The  fixed  tendency  of  revelation  to  become  nature,  to 
make  itself  more  and  more  a  citizen  on  earth,  in  order  to 
make  earth  the  chosen  place  of  divine  revelation,  this  ten¬ 
dency  is  one  day  to  be  completely  realized ;  the  consummated 
kingdom  oj  Qod  luill  comhine  both  elements — the  highest  degree 
of  revelation  and  the  highest  development  of  nedure. 

It  appears  to  me  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  themselves 
explain  very  beautifully  and  profoundly  the  relation  which 
natural  and  revealed  religion  bear  to  each  other,  and  their 
close  affinity  in  principle  and  purpose,  in  the  story  of  the  Wise 
Men  from  the  East.  They  came  to  the  Holy  Land  led  by  a 
supernatural  revelation  granted  to  them  in  connection  with 
astronomy,  the  branch  of  natural  learning  which  they 
pursued, — a  comforting  indication  that  every  earnest,  honest 
search  after  light  and  truth  leads  to  its  discovery.  The  lower 
revclcdion,  when  rightly  used,  prepares  for  a  higher  one.  Not 
the  law  of  Moses  alone,  but  also  the  heathen  philosophy  and 
investigation  of  nature,  was  a  preparation  for  the  clear  light 


134 


REASON  AND  REVELATION. 


[LECT.  II. 


of  Truth  which  was  to  shine  forth  in  Christ.  It  is  only  when 
superficially  tasted — as  Bacon  well  says — that  philosophy 
leads  us  away  from  God ;  deeper  draughts  of  a  thorough  and 
real  philosophy  bring  us  back  to  Him.  And,  we  add,  with  a 
more  modern  natural  philosopher  (Oerstedt),  “  every  thorough 
knowledge  of  nature  leads  to  a  knowledge  of  God.”  Tire  true 
spirit  of  science,  the  only  aim  of  which  is  truth,  ever  point.? 
and  impels  us  towards  the  Centre  of  all  knowledge  and  all 
truth ;  the  One  “  in  whom  are  hidden  all  the  treasures  of 
wisdom  and  of  knowledge.”  To  Him,  not  only  the  Scriptures 
with  the  ever-waxing  light  of  their  revelation,  but  heathen 
wisdom,  too,  amid  its  gropings  for  truth  in  the  starry  heavens, 
still  point  us ;  to  attain  to  its  salvation  all  history  in  its 
ruins,  nature  in  her  pangs,  the  heart  in  its  grief,  and  the  whole 
creation  in  its  groaning  and  travailing  for  freedom  (Kom.  viii. 
19-23)  are  ever  striving. 

The  wise  men  come  to  Jerusalem  ;  but  they  do  not  find 
the  path  to  Bethlehem  till  enlightened  by  the  prophetical  word, 
— a  hint  that  the  light  of  Hatural  Bmvelation  needs  to  be 
supplemented  by  that  of  Scripture.  Their  heathen  knowledge, 
when  aided  even  by  the  clearest  light  of  Hatural  Bevelation, 
brings  them  at  best  only  into  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of 
salvation;  fully  attain  to  it  they  cannot,  unless  the  Divine 
Word  be  vouchsafed  as  a  key  to  the  understanding  of  the 
Divine  Works. 

Lastly,  they  go  from  J erusalem  to  Bethlehem,  guided  by 
the  harmoniously  blended  light  of  the  prophetic  utterance  and 
of  the  Star,  which,  through  its  means,  has  once  more  appeared 
to  them, — a  sign  that  no  real  contradictions  exist  between  the 
two  revelations  in  the  Word  and  in  nature,  but  that  they  are 
one  both  in  their  divine  origin  and  in  the  end  to  which  they 
point.  We  men  may,  perhaps,  by  our  own  fault,  and  owing 
to  the  imperfection  of  our  knowledge,  lose  for  a  time  the  trace 
of  a  connection  between  the  two ;  but  he  who  deals  faithfully 
with  the  measure  of  knowledge  and  revelation  entrusted  to 
him,  and  is  obedient  to  the  heavenly  guidance,  will  be  led 
step  by  step  to  the  full  knowledge  of  the  truth.  Such  an  one 
shall  be  more  and  more  clearly  and  harmoniously  enlightened 
by  the  different  forms  of  God’s  revelation,  until  at  last  he  sees 
how  all  their  manifold  beams  converge  in,  and  radiate  from. 


LliCT.  II.] 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THEM. 


135 


the  one  Sim,  wliicli  is  the  Brightness  and  the  Heart  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  as  well  as  the  Light  of  the  world  and  the 
Centre  of  its  history, — from  Him  who,  as  the  everlasting 
Word,  unites  in  Himself  at  once  eternal  Reason  and  eternal 
Revelation. 


136  MODEIIN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [LECT.  IIL 


THIED  LECTUEE. 

MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD. 

IT  has  been  justly  said,  that  religion  is  the  first  power  upon 
earth.  Any  one  who  attentively  considers  the  history 
of  the  world  and  its  culture,  in  the  light,  not  merely  of  surface 
events,  but  of  the  intcrual  motives  which  determine  its  de¬ 
velopment,  cannot  fail  to  apprehend  this  truth. 

Even  Goethe,  in  his  Abhandkwgen  zuvi  v;est6stlichm  Divan, 
acknowledges  that  “the  only  real  and  the  deepest  theme  of 
the  world’s  and  of  man’s  history,  to  which  all  other  subjects 
are  subordinate,  is  the  conflict  between  faith  and  unbelief” 
As  long  as  the  religious  question  remains  unsolved,  there 
will  always  be  plenty  of  external  “questions”  on  the  Tiber 
or  the  Etiine,  in  Constantinople  or  in  Washington.  Since 
the  great  Erench  Eevolution,  however,  the  religious  question 
has  entered  upon  a  fresh,  and,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  upon  the 
last  stage  of  its  development.  The  issue,  taken  as  a  whole, 
no  longer  lies  in  isolated  dogmatical  differences  between  the 
various  churches  ;  even  the  controversy  between  Protestantism 
and  Eomanism  has  in  public  life  become  a  secondary  ques¬ 
tion.  The  question  now  is,  ivhether  shall  contimie  to  exist  at  all 
— Christian  belief.  The  battle  of  centuries  between  belief 
and  unbelief  is  in  our  days  nearly  tending  to  the  point  where 
the  decisive  question  must  be  put,  whether  the  Christian 
religion  shall  continue  to  be  maintained  as  the  basis  and  rule 
of  our  civilisation,  or  whether  it  must  be  wholly  abandoned. 
“  To  be,  or  not  to  be  ;  that  is  the  question  ”  now-a-days  for  the 
Christian  faith  ;  and  this  question,  if  any,  must  be  the  last, 
just  as  two  thousand  years  ago  it  was  the  first. 

Nothing  shows  this  so  clearly  as  the  present  position  of  the 
controversy  about  the  idea,  of  God.  We  have  already  re¬ 
marked  that,  in  the  conflict  between  belief  and  unbelief,  it  is 
the  idea  of  God  which  always  forms  the  heart’s  core  of  the 


LECT.  III.]  MODEKN  EOX-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  137 


matter,  the  vital  question,  and  which  decides  as  to  our  view 
of  Christianity  generally,  and  of  all  particular  dogmas.  The 
present  contest,  too,  as  to  the  person  of  Christ,  the  gospel 
history,  and  the  entire  origin  of  Christianity,  resolves  itself 
into  certain  fundamental  differences  in  the  conception  of  God. 
The  efforts  of  Strauss,  Eenan,  and  all  the  negative  critics  of 
this  class,  are,  as  we  shall  see,  based  upon  a  non-biblical — 
viz.  the  pantheistic — idea  of  God,  and  this  they  are  seeking 
to  introduce  into  the  world.  It  is  a  non-biblical  idea  of  God, 
the  deistical,  rationalistic  idea,  on  which  the  “  free-think¬ 
ing  ”  theology — that  is,  the  theology  which  denies  ail  that  is 
supernatural — and  all  its  products  are  based.  Hegel’s  con¬ 
ception  of  God  it  really  is  which  makes  Baur  and  his  school 
attempt  to  derive  the  entire  origin  of  Christianity  from  merely 
natural  sources.  We  shall  therefore  dwell  rather  longer  on 
this  cardinal  point.  For  when  we  have  once  established  the 
untenableness  of  these  fundamental  views,  it  will  be  all  the 
easier  to  understand  how  weak  is  the  criticism  based  upon 
them. 

The  controversy  as  to  the  idea  of  God  is  no  longer  the  same 
as  it  was  a  hundred  or  two  hundred  years  ago.  At  that  time, 
if  we  except  a  few  pantheists,  the  existence  of  a  personal  God 
was  not  generally  called  in  question ;  and  hence  the  only 
disputable  point  was  God’s  action  in  the  world,  whether  He 
could  work  miracles,  whether  His  providence  extended  to  all 
things,  whether  Christ  was  truly  divine,  and  the  like.  In 
the  present  day,  however,  it  is  not  merely  this  that  is  called 
in  question,  but  also  the  existence  of  God  at  all,  and  con-“ 
sequently  the  existence  of  the  human  spirit  as  a  distinct 
essence.  Formerly  the  issue  lay  between  Biblical  Christianity 
and  Deism  ;  now  it  lies  between  Christianity  and — iiothing ; 
between  belief  in  God  as  the  personal  Spirit  who  is  Love, 
and  the  denial  of  God,  which  must  be  the  annihilation  of 
man’s  spiritual  and  moral  being.  This  you  will  see  in  the 
consideration  of  our  next  subject — Atheism  and  Materialism. 

It  would  be  an  unprofitable  and  thankless  undertaking 
were  we  to  attempt  in  due  order  to  refute  all  the  non-biblical 
ideas  of  God  which  have  ever  presented  themselves.  Their 
number  is  incalculable.  Almost  every  idea  of  reason,  almost 
every  imaginable  conception  of  the  universe,  has,  one  time  or 


138  MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [lECT.  III. 


another  in  the  history  of  philosophy,  been  maintained  as  an 
idea  of  God.  Eeason  restlessly  moves  from  one  fundamental 
principle  to  another,  and,  in  its  hasty  progress  towards  some¬ 
thing  new,  ultimately  returns  to  that  which  is  old,  as  in  the 
present  day  Materialism  has  reverted  to  the  principles  of  the 
older  Ionic  and  Atomistic  Philosophy.  Under  these  circum¬ 
stances,  it  is  better  to  take  in  review  only  the  fundamental 
forms  under  which  all  the  non-biblical,  philosophical,  and 
scientific  conceptions  of  God  may  be  included  ;  and  in  so  doing, 
we  shall,  of  course,  give  special  attention  to  the  ideas  which 
prevail  in  our  own  time.  We  find  that  they  diverge  into 
three  main  tendencies,  regarding  the  Absolute  either  as  a  uni¬ 
versal  Material  Suhstance,  or  as  an  impersonal,  unconsciously 
working  Anima  Mundi,  or  as  the  Creator  of  the  leorld — personal 
indeed,  but  not  exercising  any  direct  influence  on  its  present 
life.  These  are  the  distinguishing  marks  of  the  systems  of 
Materialism,  Pantheism,  and  Deism  ;  but  before  considering 
them,  we  will  first  take  a  glance  at  Atheism  as  forming  the 
most  direct  contrast  to  the  biblical  doctrine  of  God. 


I. - ATHEISM. 

This  is  the  absolute  denial  of  any  kind  of  0eo?,  that  is,  of 
any  Divine  Being,  and  therefore  cannot  be  classed  among  the 
ideas  of  God  above  mentioned.  This  view,  that  there  is  abso¬ 
lutely  no  God  at  all,  was  so  much  detested  by  the  ancient 
Greeks,  that  they  considered  Atheism  synonymous  with  wucked- 
ness  ;  and  those  who  had  the  reputation  of  holding  this  opinion 
were  more  than  once  banished,  and  their  names  (as  that  of  a 
Diagoras,  a  Bion,  or  a  Lucian)  stigmatized  by  history.  We 
also  find  the  principle  of  Atheism — although  not  strictly  car¬ 
ried  out — in  Buddhism,  inasmuch  as  it  acknowledges  as  the 
Absolute,  only  the  absolute  Nothing  from  which  everything 
springs  and  to  which  everything  returns. 

This  view,  after  having  for  ages  appeared  only  quite  sporadi¬ 
cally,  first  assumed  the  character  of  a  system — it  indeed  it  be 
worthy  of  the  name — in  the  train  of  French  IMaterialism.  La 
Mettrie,  for  instance,  pronounced  the  belief  in  the  existence  of  a 
God  to  be  as  groundless  as  it  was  unprofitable.  This  tendency,  as 


LECT.  III.] 


ATHEISM. 


139 


is  well  known,  penetrated  the  mass  of  the  French  people  during 
the  reign  of  terror”  under  the  Convention,  when  the  “  Hebert- 
ists”  laid  it  down  as  a  principle,  “  that  the  King  of  Heaven 
must  be  dethroned  just  as  the  kings  ot  the  earth.”  Encouraged 
by  the  abjuration  of  Christianity  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop  of  Baris 
and  his  priests,  they  came  before  the  Convention  with  a  peti¬ 
tion  for  the  abrogation  of  Christianity,  and  the  institution  of  a 
worship  of  Pmason,  presenting  the  wife  of  one  of  their  colleagues 
as  the  Goddess  of  Eeason.  Clad  in  white  garments  and  a  sky- 
blue  mantle,  with  the  red  cap  on  her  head  and  a  pike  in  her 
hand,  they  placed  her  on  a  fantastically  ornamented  car,  and 
conducted  her,  surrounded  by  crowds  of  bacchanalian  dancers, 
to  the  “  Temple  of  Eeason,”  as,  they  were  pleased  to  rename 
the  Cathedral  of  Kotre-Dame.  There  she  was  seated  on  the 
high  altar,  and,  amidst  profound  obeisances,  frantic  speeches, 
and  frivolous  songs,  divine  honours  were  paid  to  her, — a 
scandal  which  was  immediately  imitated  in  several  thousand 
churches  in  the  country.  Who  does  not  see  from  this  what 
abysses  are  opened  before  a  nation  when  Atheism  once  gains 
ground  in  it ! 

Let  no  one  imagine  that  such  scenes  cannot  be  repeated. 
Kot  many  years  ago,  at  a  students’  congress  in  Liege,  some  of 
the  speakers  declared,  amidst  universal  applause,  that  “  their 
aim  was  to  do  away  with  all  religions,  to  destroy  all  churches, 
and  to  eradicate  every  thought  of  God  from  the  consciousness 
of  their  fellow-men  ;  and  that  in  their  opinion  Atheism  was  the 
ultimate  aim  of  all  human  science.”  Even  amidst  the  bom¬ 
bastic  perorations  of  a  Geneva  “  Peace  Congress,”  sentiments 
of  this  kind  may  now  and  then  be  distinctly  recognised. 

Quite  recently  all  doubt  as  to  the  growing  power  of  Atheism 
has  been  removed  by  the  blasphemous  “  Manifestos”  of  the 
Commune^  and  the  “  International,”  as  well  as  by  the  openly 
avowed  tendency  of  many  of  our  Socialist  Unions. 

Of  late,  too,  some  of  our  own  literati  and  poets  have  been 
tin-Gervian  enough  to  try  to  transplant  this  tendency  into  our 

*  Cf.  what  Gustave  Flourens,  the  late  leader  of  the  Red  Eepuhlican  party  in 
Paris,  writes  in  his  journal,  La  libre  Pens^.e,  for  October  1870  : — “Our  enemy 
is  God.  Hatred  of  God  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom.  If  mankind  would  make 
true  progress,  it  must  he  in  the  basis  of  Atheism.  Every  trace  of  religion  must 
be  banished  from  the  education  of  our  children,”  etc.  etc. 


140  MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [LECT,  III, 


German  soil.  Ay,  a  well-known  representative  of  the  people 
has  laid  it  down,  as  the  task  to  he  carried  out,  and  to  a  great  ex¬ 
tent  accomplished  by  the  present  age,  “  to  educate  in  Atheism 
personal  enemies  of  a  personal  God,  especially  amongst  the  class 
of  German  artisans.”  And  was  not,  about  twenty-five  years 
since.  Atheism  publicly  toasted  at  the  banquet  of  a  literary 
society  ?  But  philosophers  also  come  forward  as  its  advocates. 
Feuerbach  pronounces,  “  There  is  no  God ;  it  is  as  clear  as  the 
sun  and  as  evident  as  the  day  that  there  is  no  God,  and  still 
more,  that  there  can  be  none.  For  if  there  were  a  God,  then 
there  must  he  one ;  He  would  be  necessary.  But  now  if  there 
is  no  God,  then  there  can  he  no  God ;  therefore  there  is  no 
God.  There  is  no  God,  because  there  cannot  be  any.”  A 
pretty  kind  of  logic,  which  saves  us  the  trouble  of  any  refuta¬ 
tion  !  In  a  similar  way,  only  in  a  more  philosophical  garb, 
another  follower  of  Flegel,  in  his  work,  Christenthum  und 
Hitmanismus^  introduces  his  Atheism  to  the  world  by  en¬ 
deavouring  to  show  that  “  because  there  is  no  God,  there  can 
also  be  no  objective  belief.  Man  has  placed  himself,*in  the 
shape  of  the  ideal  after  which  he  strives,  as  a  religious  subject, 
outside  and  above  his  own  consciousness,  and  worships  the 
God  whom  he  has  thus  set  up.”  In  fact  the  wmrld,  as  one  of 
his  critics  remarks,  “  is  a  great  madhouse  ;  by  some  inexplicable 
bewitchment  man  sees  above  him  his  own  shadow,  and  takes 
it  to  be  the  real  author  of  his  existence.” 

If  Atheism  takes  its  stand  on  such  arguments  as  these,  we 
may  fairly  ask  whether  those  iclio  'proclaim  it  ivere  themselves 
convinced  of  it  1  It  has  been  said,  not  without  good  reason, 
that  Atheism  never  really  existed  as  a  full  conviction  in  any 
human  breast,  and  that  there  is  always  an  underlying  self- 
deception  whenever  any  one  professes  to  be  a  pure  atheist. 
That  one,  in  a  fanatical  over-estimation  of  reason,  should 
imagine  himself  able  to  know  and  investigate  everything,  and 
curtly  deny  whatever  is  beyond  his  knowledge ;  or  tliat,  in  the 
pride  which  declines  to  acknowledge  either  sin  or  its  Avenger, 
he  should  believe  himself  all-sufficient,  in  base  dependence  on 
the  world  of  sense,  denying  everything  that  does  not  belong 
to  it,  and  thus  persuading  him.self  that  no  God  exists, — this, 
after  all,  is  conceivable  enough.  But  that  he  should,  con¬ 
sciously  and  conscientiously,  make  this  idle  notion  his  p)er- 


LECT,  III.] 


ATHEISIL 


141 


manent  conviction,  and  that  he  should  not,  when  denying  the 
Christian’s  God,  venerate  aught  else  as  the  Divine  Power, 
this  is  difficult  to  believe,  even  apart  from  the  fact  that,  not¬ 
withstanding  all  the  trouble  which  atheists  have  taken  to  dis¬ 
cover  hut  one  nation  utterly  devoid  of  religious  consciousness, 
we  have  found,  down  to  the  present  day,  in  all  nations,  even 
the  most  degraded,  some  conception  or  other  of  a  Higher  Being, 
and  a  leeling  of  dependence  on  supernatural  powers,  and  con¬ 
sequently  some  kind  of  religious  exercise.  Cicero’s  question 
{De  Nat.  Deoriim,  i.  1 6)  still  holds  good — “  What  people  is 
there,  or  what  race  of  men,  which  has  not,  even  without 
traditional  teaching,  some  presentiment  of  the  existence  of 
Gods  ?”  Does  not  this  indicate  that  the  belief  in  some  higher 
and  more  powerful  Being  by  which  he  is  conditioned,  is  both  a 
logical  and  a  moral  necessity  for  man  ?  Or  must  not  that  in 
wliich  not  merely  many  (which  would  prove  nothing),  but.a/Z 
agree,  be  grounded  in  the  nature  and  essence  of  man  himself  ? 

Yes,  human  thought  must  recognise  God  jiist  as  certainly 
as  itself  and  the  world.  As  a  modern  apologist  says:  “We 
cannot,  in  any  way,,  get  rid  of  the  idea.”^  We  do  not 
merely  helicve  that  there  is  a  God,  but  we  hioiv  it  in 
virtue  of  an  ideal  cognition  consisting  in  an  immediate 
act  of  faith  in  human  consciousness.  And  this  very  fact, 
that  a  direct  certainty  of  God  exists  in  our  minds  per  se, 
is  the  most  simple  refutation  of  Atheism.  It  is  not  as  if  the 
idea  of  God  were  in  its  complete  shape  innate  in  our  minds. 
We  have  seen  above  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  full-grown 
innate  ideas.  Bather,  the  idea  of  God  developes  itself  (along 
with  those  of  our  own  personality  and  the  Cosmos)  through 
contact  with  the  outer  world,  of  necessity,  from  the  inward  pre¬ 
disposition  of  our  mental  and  moral  constitution.  Man,  in 
becoming  conscious  of  his  own  personality,  becomes  at  the 
same  time  conscious  of  his  state  as  a  conditioned  and  limited 
being  ;  from  which  follows,  as  a  necessary  corollary,  the  acknow¬ 
ledgment  that  there  must  be  a  Being  who  is  absolute  and  un¬ 
conditioned.  “  The  perception  of  his  own  relativity  leads  man 
to  the  idea  of  some  higher  Being  on  whom  his  own  existence 

^  Cf.  tlie  well-known  and  excellent  Apolocjetic  Lectures  by  Lutliardt,  of  wliich 
a  translation  has  been  published  by  Messrs.  Clai’k.  Also,  for  what  follows, 
Delitzsch  ut  supr.,  pp.  66,  67. 


142  MODEllN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [lECT.  IH. 


depends,  and  this  Being  he  can  only  conceive  as  one  that  is 
absolute — above  himself  and  above  nature — that  is,  God.”^ 

Whether  this  higher  Being  must  also  be  conceived  as 
‘personal,  we  shall  presently  have  to  investigate,  when  consider¬ 
ing  the  impersonal  (pantheistic)  idea  of  God.  Here  we  have 
only  to  do  with  the  idea  of  God  as  a  necessary  postulate  of 
thought.  And  we  see  that  the  atheist  can  give  no  clear 
account  of  the  inner  elements  and  the  extent  of  his  own 
consciousness. 

Even  heathen  thinkers  have  recognised  the  importance  of 
this  universal  fact  of  ethnology  and  psychology  as  telling  in 
favour  of  belief  in  God.  That  that  “  wherein  all  by  nature 
agree  must  be  true,”  is  a  conclusion  rightly  drawn  by  Cicero. 
Or  could  a  man  in  his  senses  venture  to  tax  the  whole  of 
mankind  with  an  error  in  their  consciousness  ?  Ho  lie  can 
last  for  ever;  only  truth  is  eternal.  If  the  consciousness  of 
God  were  an  error,  it  would,  like  any  other  error,  have  long 
ago  vanished.  But  instead  of  this,  we  see  it  propagating 
itself  with  growing  power  tlirough  all  the  ages. 

If,  then,  the  existence  of  God  be  an  inward  necessity  of 
thought,  the  denial  of  it  can  be  nothing  but  an  arbitrary  act 
of  our  will ;  it  is  that  we  will  not  achnoioledye  this  inward 
certainty.  As  an  element  of  our  consciousness,  as  a  divine 
gift  implanted  in  the  heart,  the  idea  of  God  precedes  all  other 
thought,  and  the  only  question  is,  whether  we  are  willing  to 
let  it  stand  as  truth  or  not.  If  we  acknowledge  it,  the  heart 
convinces  the  nnderstaiidinq,  and  not  vice  versa.  Hence  the 
belief  in  God  is  “  not  a  science,  but  a  virtue.”  If,  however, 


^  Delltzsch  ut  supr.  Taking  tliis  into  consideration,  we  cannot  deny  tliat  some 
weight  is  to  be  attaciied  to  the  much  reviled  ontological  argument  for  the  existence 
of  God.  The  way  in  which  it  is  usually  put  is  this— that  the  idea  of  the  Most 
Perfect  Being  includes  reality  as  one  of  Plis  perfections,  and  that,  consequently, 
the  Most  Perfect  Being  necessaril}'  exists,  which  has  been  clearly  shown  by  Kant 
to  be  a  false  conclusion.  But  is  it  not  “  an  immediate  certainty  that  the  greatest, 
most  beautiful,  and  most  valuable  object  must  be  a  reality,  and  not  a  mere  matter 
of  thought ;  for  it  would  be  utterly  intolerable  to  believe  our  highest  Ideal  to  be 
a  mere  conception  ol  our  intellect,  without  actual  existence,  power,  or  validity  *  ” 
Even  if  we  cannot,  from  the  perfection  of  the  absolutely  Perfect,  logically  infer 
its  actual  existence,  still  we  distincthj  feel  the  impossibility  oj  its  non-exUtence. 
“If  the  Greatest  did  not  exist,  there  would  be  no  Greatest;  and  it  is  surely 
impossible  that  the  Greatest  of  all  imaginable  beings  should  not  exist."  Lotze, 
MUcrokosmus,  iii.  p.  557 


LECT.  III.] 


ATHEISM. 


143 


we  will  not  allow  the  idea  of  God,  it  is  because  the  under¬ 
standing  is  unwilling  to  be  thus  convinced  by  the  heart,  and 
this  is  an  arbitrary  act.  It  was  therefore  a  perfectly  correct 
instinct  wliich  led  the  Greeks  to  look  upon  Atheism  as  a 
moral  fault.  And  every  moral  fault  avenges  itself.  The 
refusal  to  acknowledge  that  which  is,  and  absolutely  is,  and  is 
directly  certain  to  every  heart,  leads  to  the  acceptance  of  that 
which  is  nothing  but  a  deceptive  shadow.  Man  must  have  a 
God.  If  he  rejects  the  true  God,  he  must  make  a  God  for 
himself,  and  this  is  of  necessity  a  false  one.  “  Man  must  be¬ 
lieve  in  something.  If  he  does  not  believe  in  the  Eternal 
Eeason,  he  believes  in  unreason ;  if  he  does  not  accept  as  the 
truth  the  living  God,  he  believes  in  the  idol  of  inanimate 
matter.” 

The  pretensions  of  Atheism  would  seem  to  be  supported  by 
the  rejection  in  modern  times  of  the  old  arguments  which  had 
long  obtained  in  favour  of  the  existence  of  a  God.  We  re¬ 
serve  the  most  important  of  tliese  for  our  consideration  of 
rantheism,  merely  remarking  that  they  are  not,  it  is  true,  cogent. 
To  one  who  does  not  believe  in  the  foundation  of  all  religion, 
that  is,  the  reality  of  the  supersensuous,  they  prove  nothing ; 
for  the  existence  of  the  supersensuous  can  never  be  demon¬ 
strated  by  mere  reasoning.  But  for  one  who  has  this  belief, 
they  do  possess  a  certain  force  :  they  have  the  value  of  a 
“subjective  assurance,”  since  they  make  the  existence  of  God 
in  the  highest  degree  probable  to  reason. 

Granted,  ]iou'cvcr,that  the  existence  of  a  God  cannot  he  proved, 
still  less  can  His  non-cxistence.  This  can  be  shown  without 
difficulty.  The  denial  of  the  existence  of  God  involves  a 
perfectly  monstrous  hypothesis  ;  it  is,  when  looked  at  more 
closely,  an  unconscionable  assumption.  Before  one  can  say 
that  the  world  is  without  a  God,  he  must  first  have  become 
thoroughly  conversant  with  the  whole  world.  He  must  have 
searched  through  the  universe  of  suns  and  stars,  as  well  as 
the  history  of  all  ages ;  he  must  have  wandered  through  the 
whole  realm  of  space  and  time  in  order  to  be  able  to  assert 
w’ith  truth,  “Nowhere  has  a  trace  of  God  been  found!”  He 
must  be  acquainted  with  every  force  in  the  whole  universe  ; 
for  shoTdd  but  one  escape  him,  that  very  one  might  be  God. 
He  must  be  able  to  count  up  with  certainty  all  the  causes 


144  MODERN  NON-BIBLIC-VL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [lECT.  III. 

of  existence;  for  were  there  one  that  he  did  not  know,  that 
one  might  be  God.  He  must  be  in  absolute  possession  of  all 
the  elements  of  truth,  which  form  the  whole  body  of  our 
knowledge ;  for  else  the  one  factor  which  he  did  not  possess 
might  be  just  the  very  truth  that  there  is  a  God.  If  he  does 
not  know  and  cannot  explain  everything  that  has  happened 
in  the  course  of  ages,  just  the  very  point  which  he  does  not 
know,  and  is  unable  to  explain,  may  involve  the  instrumen¬ 
tality  of  a  God.  In  short,  to  be  able  to  affirm  authoritatively 
that  no  God  exists,  a  man  must  be  omniseient  and  omnipresent, 
that  is,  he  himself  must  be  God  ;  and  then  after  all  there  would 
be  one.  You  see  in  this  the  monstrosity  of  the  atheistic 
hypothesis,  that  it  is  possible  to  prove  the  non-existence  of 
God.  Atheism  depends  as  much,  and  more,  than  Theism  on 
faith,  that  is,  on  assumptions  which  cannot  be  proved. 

Finally,  we  would  ask.  What  advantage  accrues  to  the 
solution  of  the  world’s  enigma  if  we  assume  the  non-existence 
of  a  God  ?  None  at  all  can  we  see.  The  atheist,  just  as  the 
materialist  and  the  pantheist,  must  suppose  the  world  to 
be  eternal.  Is  its  existence  in  any  way  thus  explained  1  It 
may,  at  the  present  day,  be  physically  proved  with  tolerable 
certainty,  that  the  first  fact  of  which  any  trace  is  extant  in 
the  world’s  history  is  the  appearance  of  light.  This  brings  us, 
as  a  scientific  naturalist  remarks,  “  to  the  limit  of  our  physical 
knowledge,  and  to  the  very  end  of  what  we  can  discover  as 
regards  the  material  world.”  If  we  inquire  further.  Whence 
this  principle  of  light  ?  Holy  Scripture  at  once  gives  the  “ 
answer:  “God  said,  Let  there  be  light;” — the  atheist,  the 
materialist,  and  the  pantheist  have  no  answer  to  give ;  they 
say  that  light,  or  the  matter  and  force  from  which  light  is 
derived,  has  existed  from  everlasting.  What  does  this  ex¬ 
plain  ?  These  sceptics  may  pronounce  the  idea  of  a  God 
existing  from  all  eternity  incomprehensible,  but  they  forget 
that  their  idea  of  eternal  matter  is  at  least  equally  unex¬ 
plained.  Where,  then,  is  the  advantage  ?  For  the  rest,  the 
arguments  to  be  adduced  against  Materialism  and  Pantheism, 
especially  those  of  a  moral  nature,  apply  also  to  Atheism. 


LECT.  IIL] 


MATEEIALIS5L 


145 


II. - MATEEIALISM. 

Materialism  is  the  twin  brother  of  Atheism.  They  must 
necessarily  be  simultaneous ;  for  he  who  denies  the  existence 
of  God,  is  unable,  as  we  shall  see,  to  maintain  the  spiritual 
personality  of  man.  Historically  it  invariably  either  proceeds 
or  closely  follows  Atheism.  The  two  play  into  one  another’s 
hands,  and,  in  fact,  amount  to  the  same  thing.  For  Atheism 
must  ultimately  believe  in  the  eternity  of  matter,  and,  just 
like  Materialism,  must  make  it  its  God.  Between  Materialism 
and  Pantheism,  however,  a  distinction  must  he  drawn.  Pan¬ 
theism  considers  God  as  the  Soul  of  the  world,  and  material 
nature  as  His  body  only.  Materialism  merges  God  in  matter ; 
for,  according  to  it,  nothing  at  all  exists  hut  matter, — there  is  no 
sueh  thing  as  a  separate  spiritual  substance.  All  that  exists  is 
material ;  and  that  which  is  called  spirit,  or  spiritual  life,  is 
nothing  hut  a  function  of  the  life  of  the  body,  a  necessary 
product  of  sensuous  perception,  and  of  the  nutritive  matter 
absorbed  by  us,  but  pre-eminently  of  the  action  of  the  cerebral  * 
muscles.  Materialism  may  w'ell  be  called  the  gospel  of  the 
flesh ;  it  is  the  absolute  deification  of  matter  and  of  the 
creature,  traces  of  which  pervade  the  whole  history  of  man¬ 
kind  from  Babel  and  Sodom  onwards ;  nay,  from  the  tasting 
of  the  forbidden  fruit  in  Paradise  down  to  our  own  days. 
Every  false  belief,  and  every  act  of  unbelief,  like  that  of 
Thomas,  involves  a  disposition  to  sensualism  and  materialism. 
Every  apostasy  from  the  living  God,  who  is  a  Spirit,  necessi¬ 
tates  a  tendency  in  the  opposite  direction  to  the  deification  of 
the  flesh,  though  it  may  not  always  go  so  far. 

Hence  unbelief  has  constantly  from  time  to  time  landed  in 
Materialism.  We  find  it  in  the  Buddhism  of  ancient  India ; 
in  Greece,  among  the  Atomists  and  the  Sophists,  the  Epi¬ 
cureans  and  the  Sceptics  ;  we  find  it  in  the  middle  ages, 
when  the  Eoman  Church  clearly  betrayed  her  tendency  to 
the  worship  of  matter,  and  even  at  times  among  the  occupants 
of  the  Papal  throne,  of  whom,  for  instance,  John  xxiii.  (d. 
1419)  and  Paul  iii.  (d.  1549)  publicly  denied  the  immor¬ 
tality  of  the  soul ;  we  find  it  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth 
centuries,  as  the  ultimate  result  of  the  long-protracted  doubts 


146  MODEEN  XON-CIBLICAL  COXCEPTIOXS  OF  GOD.  [LECT.  III. 


as  to  revelation  ;  and  everywhere  do  we  see  it  exercising  the 
same  pernicious  effect  on  nations,  everywhere  rushing  through 
the  same  circle  till  it  attains  its  climax  in  despair  of  all 
knowledge  of  truth,  giving  the  rein  to  all  evil  desires,  and 
finally  destroying  its  own  existence. 

In  our  days,  the  materialistic  view  has  obtained  a  wide¬ 
spread  acceptation,  owing  to  the  fact,  that  many  natural 
philosophers  assume  the  entirely  material  descent  of  mankind, 
and  make  out  that  the  ancestors  of  our  race,  just  like  other 
mammals,  especially  apes,  originally  sprang  from  the  primeval 
slime.  In  Germany,  too,  the  influence  of  this  school  has  been 
no  slight  one  during  the  last  decades.  L.  Feuerbach,  C.  Vogt, 
J.  Moleschott,  Buchner,  Czolhe,  and  others,  were,  and  still  are, 
the  chief  heralds  of  this  wisdom.  “  The  soul,”  exclaims  Vogt 
{Physiologische  Brief e,  1846),  “  does  not  enter  into  the  human 
foetus  like  an  evil  spirit  into  one  possessed,  hut  is  the  product 
of  the  brain’s  development,  just  as  muscular  action  is  produced 
by  the  development  of  the  muscles,  and  secretion  by  that  of 
the  glands. — To  assume  the  existence  of  a  soul  which  uses 
'  the  brain  as  an  instrument  with  which  to  work  as  it  pleases, 
is  utter  nonsense.  Physiology  distinctly  and  categorically 
pronounces  against  any  individual  immortality,  and  against 
all  ideas  which  are  connected  with  the  figment  of  a  separate 
existence  of  the  soul”  “  Man,”  says  Moleschott  [der  Kreislmif 
des  Lcbens,  jphysiologische  Antwortcn  auf  Liclig's  cliemische 
Brief e,  4th  Ed.  1863),  “is  produced  from  wind  and  ashes. 
The  action  of  vegetable  life  called  him  into  existence.  Man 
is  the  sum  of  his  parents  and  his  Avet-nurse,  of  time  and  place, 
of  wind  and  weather,  of  sound  and  light,  of  food  and  clothing ; 
his  will  is  the  necessary  consequence  of  all  these  causes, 
governed  by  the  laws  of  nature,  just  as  the  planet  in  its  orbit, 
and  the  A^egetable  in  its  soil.  Thought  consists  in  the  motion 
of  matter,  it  is  a  translocation  of  the  cerebral  substance ; 
without  phosphorus  there  can  be  no  thought ;  and  conscious¬ 
ness  itself  is  nothing  but  an  attribute  of  matter.”  The  watch¬ 
word  of  this  school  is,  in  short.  We  are  vdiat  ive  eat  (Feuer¬ 
bach)  ;  in  fact,  man  is  nothing  but  a  retort  in  which  certain 
elements  are  chemically  decomposed  and  combined,  and  certain 
gases  generated ;  or  as  Czolbe  ex^wesses  it  {Entstclmng  des 
Selbstlewusstseins,  1856),  “  nothing  more  than  a  mosaic  figure 


LECT.  III.]  MATERIALISM.  147 

made  up  of  different  atoms  and  mechanically  combined  in  an 
elaborate  shape.” 

We  need  not  delay  to  prove  that  this  gospel  of  the  flesh, 
the  moral  of  which  is  to  produce  plenty  of  phosphorus  by 
means  of  good  eating  and  drinking,  is  diametrically  opposed 
to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  teach  us  to  worship  God  as  a 
Spirit,  and  in  the  spirit,  and  bid  man,  as  the  spiritual  image 
of  God,  approach  his  Creator  in  the  way  of  sanctification  and 
subjection  of  the  flesh  to  the  spirit ;  which,  from  beginning  to 
end,  so  often  warn  us  against  any  deification  of  the  creature, 
against  the  worship  of  the  visible  and  the  transient,  against 
those  “  whose  god  is  their  belly,”  who  say,  “  Let  us  eat  and 
drink,  for  to-morrow  we  die.”  Surely  this  is  a  view  tmivorthy 
of  refutation  ;  for  oh  !  is  it  not  a  grievous  and  shameful  thing 
that  one  should  have  to  'prove,  to  men  that  they  are  something 
better  than  beasts  ?  In  opposition  to  such  theories,  an  appeal 
to  the  self-consciousness  of  the  soul  and  to  its  moral  feeling’s 
should  sufiice.  But  since  in  our  days  Materialism,  disguised 
under  the  garb  of  science,  has  impressed  with  the  idea  of  its 
importance  many  who  have  not  as  yet  gone  so  far  as  to  adopt 
it  in  theory,  but  who  do  so  all  the  more  in  practice,  by  exclu¬ 
sively  directing  all  their  energy  towards  gain  and  pleasure,  it 
becomes  a  matter  of  necessity  briefly  to  point  out  the  scientific 
tvcahiess  and  groundlessness  of  this  stand-point} 

We  might  at  once  dismiss  the  “phosphorus  theory”  by 
simply  denying  the  existence  of  phosphorus  in  the  brain. 
And  for  a  corroboration,  we  might  appeal  to  the  celebrated 
J.  V.  Liebig,  who  says :  “  The  honour  of  the  discovery  that 
phosphorus  exists  in  the  brain  belongs,  not  to  me,  but  to  Dr. 
JMoleschott ;  and  in  my  ‘  Chemical  Letters  ’  I  have  declared  it 
to  be  a  mistaken  idea,  not  based  on  a  single  fact,” — an  utter- 
ance  which  sli6ws,  at  all  events,  how  uncertain  is  the  hypothesis 
upon  which  this  theory  is  based.  But  it  is  not  our  business 
to  pronounce  an  opinion  on  this  controversy.  We  might  ask 

^  Cf.  on  this  subject,  Fabri,  Brl»fe  gegen  dm  Materialismus,  2d  ed.  ;  Paiete, 
On  the  Existence  of  the  Soul  from  the  Stand-point  of  Natural  Science,  Leipzig 
1863  ;  the  History  of  Materialism  in  Bohner’s  Naturforschung  und  Culturleben, 
2d  ed.  p.  101  fl.  ;  and  the  works  of  Rud.  Wagner,  Menschcnschopfnng  u. 
Seelensubstanz,  1854  ;  der  Kampf  um  die  Seele,  1857  ;  Vorstudien  zu  einer 
wisscnsch.  Morphologic  u.  Physlologie  des  menschlichen  Gehirns  als  Seelenorgan, 
1862. 


148  MODERN  NOX-BIBLICAL  .CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [lECT.  IIL 


those  gentlemen  who  assert  that  thought  is  derived  merely 
from  the  nerves  and  convolutions  of  the  brain,  to  explain  to 
us  what  is  the  specific  organ  or  acting  medium  of  nervous 
activity,  and  should  thus  not  a  little  perplex  them.  For  on 
this  point  physiologists  are’ still  most  divided  in  their  views. 
According  to  one,  the  nerves  are  like  the  strino-s  of  an  instru- 
ment,  the  vibrations  of  which  act  upon  the  brain,  and  thence 
are  reflected  to  the  periphery.  Another  seeks  to  determine 
nervous  action  after  the  manner  of  the  mechanical  propagation 
of  motion,  i.e.  as  a  concussion  of  minute  globules.  Others 
assume  the  presence  in  the  nerves  of  an  albuminous,  or  an 
acrid,  or  a  sulphurous  fluid,  which,  by  means  of  a  pressure  at 
one  end,  produces  a  similar  pressure  at  the  other ;  and  this 
nervous  fluid  is  sometimes  thought  to  be  ether,  sometimes 
luminous  matter,  sometimes  caloric.  Others,  again,  are  of 
opinion  that  electricity  and  galvanism  are  the  active  principle 
of  the  nerves,  etc.  Whilst  thus,  as  we  see,  nothing  certain  has 
yet  been  ascertained  as  to  the  material  of  the  nervous  func¬ 
tions,  these  people  dare  to  attribute  the  mental  functions, 
liitherto  held  by  the  whole  world  to  be  immaterial,  to  the 
nervous  activity  of  the  brain, — a  totally  unknown  quantity, 
about  which,  forsooth,  they  claim  to  be  able  to  set  up  hypo¬ 
theses  ! 

Let  us,  however,  submit  their  main  propositions  to  a  closer 
examination.  In  order  to  eliminate  the  spirit  from  our  nature, 
iMaterialism,  both  ancient  and  modern,  adduces  two  'propositions : 
first,  Thevt  sensuous  perception  is  the  source  of  all  knowledge  ;  and 
second.  That  all  mental  action  is  nothing  more  than  the  activity 
of  matter,  and  therefore  the  sold  itself  is  materied  afid  mortal. 
Let  us  now  consider  the  first  proposition. 

{a)  Is  it  then  a  fact,  that  everything  in  the  nature  of 
thoughts,  notions,  and  ideas  which  can  be  conceived  by  our 
understanding,  our  reason,  or  our  memory,  reaches  us  merely 
through  the  senses  ?  Can  it  be  that  every  idea  of  ours  may 
be  reduced  to  an  original  act  of  seeing,  hearing,  smelling,  etc.  ? 
What  right  have  w’e  at  all  to  assert  the  existence  of  a  neces¬ 
sary  mechanical  relation  between  the  perception  of  the  senses 
and  thought  ?  The  one  process  is  separated  from  the  other 
both  temporally  and  locally;  for,  according  to  materialistic 
principles,  thought  is  evolved  by  an  irritation  of  the  brain,  and 


LECT.  III.] 


MATERIALISM. 


149 


material  perception  by  a  function  of  the  senses.  Now  Mate¬ 
rialism,  either  thoughtlessly  or  sophistically,  straightway 
asserts  that  there  is  a  mechanically  necessary  mutual  relation 
between  the  two, — an  assertion  what  is  contradicted  by  all 
experience.  For  is  it  not  frequently  a  matter  of  fact,  that  one 
and  the  same  material  perception  excites  di^vrent  thoughts 
even  in  the  same  individual,  to  say  nothing  of  different  per¬ 
sons  ?  How,  then,  can  we  say  with  Vogt,  “like  causes,  like 
results  ”  ?  According  to  Vogt’s  law,  similar  sounds  should 
produce  similar  thoughts.  The  two  propositions,  “There  is  a 
God,”  and  “  There  is  no  God,”  sound  very  much  alike,  and 
differ  only  in  two  letters ;  how  is  it,  then,  that  they  call  forth 
in  us  opposite  and  not  similar  thoughts  ? 

Is  it  not  further  a  matter  of  fact,  that  a  perception  of  the 
senses  does  not  by  any  means  necessarily  and  in  all  cases 
call  forth  a  thought  ?  Cannot  a  man  under  the  influence  of 
violent  irritation  of  the  senses  pursue  a  line  of  thought  which 
stands  in  no  kind  of  connection  therewdth  ?  And  are  there 
not  innumerable  thoughts  which  arise  completely  independent 
of  any  external  sensuous  perception  ?  Cannot  I  imagine 
something  which  I  neither  hear,  see,  nor  smell,  etc.  ?  And 
how  can  the  materialist  explain  dream-life,  in  which  the 
functions  of  the  five  senses  cease  ?  Are  dreams  caused  by 
nervous  excitement ;  and  if  so,  whence  the  excitement  without 
'  any  irritation  of  the  senses  ?  Or  how  can  memory  be  ex¬ 
plained  ?  Since  the  substance  of  the  body  is  being  constantly 
renewed,  the  influence,  for  instance,  of  the  journeys  which  we 
have  taken  in  your  youth  ought  gradually  to  fade  away  after 
about  twelve  years,  because  then  the  substance  of  the  brain 
wdiich  originally  received  them  has  completely  disappeared. 
Instead,  however,  of  this,  we  find  that  many  impressions  and 
recollections  lose  nothing  of  their  vividness  even  after  the 
lapse  of  many  decades.  And  then,  to  put  isolated  intellectual 
functions  out  of  the  question,  we  inquire  :  Whence  the  laws 
of  thought  themselves  ?  And  finally  :  Whence  the  idea  of 
God,  and  aU  the  moral  ideas  ? 

Material  'perce'ption  is  therefore  very  far  from  forming  the 
whole  substamee  of  our  intellectual  life,  and  hence  cannot  be  the 
sole  source  of  our  hnowledge.  Indeed,  the  external  influence 
does  not  even  form  the  full  substance  of  the  material  sensa- 


150  MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [LECT.  III. 

tion  that  we  are  conscious  of,  but  is  only  the  outward  incite¬ 
ment  thereto.  The  individual  acts  of  sensation  are  one  thing, 
and  the  capability  of  perceiving  light,  colour,  etc.  is  another. 
The  capability  itself  cannot  be  looked  upon  as  evolved  in  us 
solely  by  the  exciting  influences  of  waves  of  light  and  sound. 

Instead  of  all  this,  we  might  inquire,  if  all  thoughts  arise 
merely  from  impressions  which  the  senses  are  pleeised  to 
impart,  why  does  not  sensuous  perception  produce  rational 
thought  in  beasts  also  ?  The  fact  that  the  latter  do  not  really 
think,  whilst  their  material  perceptions  are  exceedingly  acute, 
is  a  sufficient  proof  that  a  distinction  must  be  drawn  between 
thinking  and  material  sensation,  and  that  the  former  is  some¬ 
thing  new  and  special  as  compared  with  the  latter.^  On  the 
other  hand,  there  are  plenty  of  examples  of  human  beings 
who  are  almost  entirely  deficient  in  the  faculties  of  material 
perception,  and  Avho,  nevertheless,  exhibit  a  perfectly  developed 
life  of  thought,  and  considerable  mental  acquirements.  Laura 
Bridgman,  born  the  20th  of  December  1829,  at  Hanover,  in 
Hew  Hampshire,  U.S.,  suffered  up  to  the  twentieth  month  of 
her  age  from  convulsive  fits ;  she  then  completely  lost  the 
senses  of  sight,  hearing,  and  smell,  and  almost  entirely  that  of 
taste, — the  sense  of  touch  being  the  only  one  left  to  her,  with¬ 
out  any  recollection  of  the  former  possession  of  other  faculties. 
Nevertheless,  under  the  instruction  of  a  skilful  teacher  of  the 
deaf  and  dumb,  she  has  succeeded  in  attaining  an  incredibly 
high  development  both  in  a  physical,  moral,  and  intellectual 
point  of  view :  her  understanding  has  developed  just  as  in 
one  possessed  of  all  his  senses ;  and,  although  four  classes  of 
material  impressions  are  denied  to  her,  still  she  is  in  perfect 
possession  of  all  the  elements  of  human  reason.  She  is  still 
(1863)  living,  and  is  happy  and  contented  (see  Euete  ut 
siqora).  In  the  face  of  facts  like  these,  how  can  any  one  assert 


^  Cf.  also  the  rcmarhs  wliich  Liebig  (ChemiscJie  Briefe,  1865,  p.  38)  makes, 
from  a  chemical  stand-point,  against  the  materialistic  tlieory  :  “The  strangest 
thing  is,  tliat  many  look  upon  tlie  peculiarities  of  the  self-conscious,  thinking, 
and  piu’ceptive  being  in  this  habitation  (the  human  body)  as  a  simple  conse¬ 
quence  of  its  internal  strucrure  and  the  arrangement  of  its  smallest  ]>articles, 
although  chemistry  supplies  the  indubitable  proof  that,  as  regards  this  extremely 
delicate  combination  which  is  almost  beyond  the  perception  of  the  senses,  man 
is  identical  with  the  lowest  animals.”  There  is,  therefore,  every  reason  for  tho 
latter  also  being  able  to  think. 


LECT.  III.]  MATEKIALISM.  151  j 

I 

that  all  rational  knowledge  is  nothing  hut  a  product  of  the  ! 

organs  of  sense"? 

(b)  And  how  fares  it  with  the  second  axiom  of  Materialism, 
that  mind  is  merely  an  activity  and  cfect  oj  matter  I  This 
question  turns  upon  the  relation  existing  between  the  brain 
and  thouo’ht.  Hitherto  the  brain  has  been  considered  as  the 

O 

organ  to  which  indeed  thought  w'as  necessarily  bound,  but  ! 

which  the  mind  freely  controlled.  In  order  to  subvert  this 
view,  the  materialist  must  prove  that  a  mechanical  law  governs 
the  relation  between  a  certain  irritation  of  the  brain  and  the 
excitation  of  a  certain  thought.  All  attempts,  however,  to 
supply  this  proof,  load  only  to  the  conclusion  that  a  mutual  . 
relation  subsists  between  the  brain  and  thought,  but  do  not 
demonstrate  that  this  relation  is  a  mechanically  binding  one. 

Many  facts,  indeed,  directly  contradict  this.  How  does  it  ^ 
come  to  pass  that  in  many  cases  a  morbid  alteration  of  the  .  , 

brain,  nay,  even  a  partial  loss  of  brain-matter  (by  wounds),  ''Li 'di¬ 

does  not  weaken  the  mental  life ;  or,  conversely,  that  after  / 

Ion"  and  vehement  mental  aberrations  no  alteration  of  the 

O 

brain  can  be  demonstrated  ?  Whence,  moreover,  the  absolutely 
inexhaustible  fertility  of  the  brain  in  the  formation  of  thoughts, 
since  a  material  structure  of  this  sort,  limited  as  to  space, 
affords  only  a  definite  number  of  possibilities,  and  also  since 
material  perception  is  always  of  a  limited  nature  ?  Besides, 
if  thought  be  identical  with  the  brain,  and  the  soul  with  the 
body,  it  cannot  rightly  be  understood  why  man  should  first 
have  to  make  himself  acquainted  with  his  own  body,  a  fact 
which  is  perfectly  clear  in  the  case  of  children.  Does  not  the 
circumstance,  that  man  must  find  out  the  locality  of  his  own 
limbs  by  experience,  indicate  that  the  body  is  merely  an  in¬ 
strument  of  the  soul  ? 

These  are  then  indications  of  a  dualism  existing  between 
nervous  or  cerebral  activity  and  mental  life ;  and  this  dualism 
is  rendered  still  more  probable  by  the  comparison — so  much 
in  vogue  at  the  present  day — between  our  brain  ^nd  that  of 
the  anthropoid  apes.'  Modern  anatomy  has  taught  us  that 
the  brain,  for  instance,  of  the  orang-outang  only  differs  from 
that  of  man  in  an  inferior  intricaev  of  the  convolutions,  a  some- 
what  greater  protuberance  of  the  cerebellum,  as  well  as  in  a  less 
delicate  molecular  composition  (cf.  the  investigations  of  Perty, 


152  MODERN  NON-CIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [lECT.  III. 

Rongemont,  and  others).  On  the  whole,  however,  the  differ¬ 
ence  is  not  very  important ;  in  external  size  and  weight,  the  two 
brains  are  pretty  much  alike.  Anatomists  have  thus  unwittingly 
supplied  us  with  an  excellent  Aveapon  for  the  vindication  of 
the  biblical  view  of  man.  The  argument  intended  to  support 
]\Iaterialism  in  fact  refutes  it.  Tor  we  again  ask,  as  in  the 
case  ot  sensuous  perfections,  if  the  organ,  or,  as  materialists 
Avould  say,  the  substance  of  thought,  and  to  some  extent  the 
nourishment,  are  so  similar  in  man  and  beast,  why  are  not  the 
products  of  thinking,  that  is,  the  ideas,  also  similar  ?  Why 
is  it  that  the  beast,  with  nearly  the  same  development  of  brain  as 
man,  cannot  succeed  in  producing  nearly  the  same  conceptions 
and  ideas  ?  If  this  question  cannot  be  answered  satisfactorily, 
evidently  the  higher  character  of  thought  in  man  cannot  depend 
on  the  structure  oj  his  organs  alone}  and  is  not  the  product  of 
merely  material  causes.  For  “  the  greater  the  number  of 
oriranic  similarities  which  are  discovered  between  man  and 

O 

beast,  the  more  evident  is  the  different  nature  of  the  treasure 
which  God  has  implanted  in  us  ”  (G.  Saint  Hilaire),  and  has 
concealed  under  similar  forms.  It  is  thus  perfectly  clear  that 
tliere  is  a  dualism  between  the  brain  and  the  operations  of 
thought,  and  that  there '  must  be  a  new  factor  which  consti- 
tutes  the  latter  in  man. 

In  order  to  elude  this  simple  conclusion,  materialists  have 
draAvn  special  attention  to  the  various  phenomena  in  animal 
life  which  are  analogous  to  the  operations  of  the  soul  in  man, — 
such  as  their  prudence,  their  constructiveness,  their  memory, 
their  expressions  of  joy,  thankfulness,  love,  etc., — as  a  proof  that 
there  is  no  specific  difference,  but  only  one  of  degree,  between 
the  mental  life  of  man  and  that  of  beasts.  Vogt,  indeed,  has 
but  latel}'  discovered  “  an  ursine  and  feline  morality,”  because 
bear  cubs  and  kittens  are  growled  at  and  cuffed  by  their 
parents,  “just  as  our  own  dear  little  ones  are  when  they  make 
light  of  filial  obedience.”  We  do  not  object  to  consider  such 
phenomena  as  anedogies  to  the  workings  of  the  human  soul. 
We  would  even  go  so  far  as  to  remind  our  opponents,  it  they 
have  overlooked  it,  as  a  farther  argument  in  their  favour,  of 

'For  this  reason,  Moleschott  has  tacitly  withdrawn,  in  the  second  edition  of 
his  above-named  work,  the  attempt  to  prove  the  capability  ot  thought  in  man 
from  the  structure  of  his  brain. 


LECT.  III.] 


MATEPJA.LISM. 


153 


the  masterpiece  of  instinct  in  the  case  of  the  elephant,  who 
at  night-time  escaped  from  his  cage,  and  was  found  in  the 
open  fields,  practising  by  moonlight  the  lesson  which  his 
keeper  had  been  teaching  him  in  the  daytime. 

But  what  do  all  such  examples  prove  ?  Nothing  but  this ; 
that  animals  possess,  often  in  a  high  degree,  the  capability  of 
sensuous  cognition,  and  of  making  a  judicious  choice  among 
the  possible  courses  of  action,  as  well  as  the  faculty  of  memory. 
But  what  a  v/ide  difference  there  still  remains  between  this 
lower  form  of  consciousness  in  the  beast,  this  mere  force  of 
impulse  and  instinct,  and  the  self-conscious  intellect  of  man, 
which  forms  conceptions  and  ideas !  If  these  animal  feats 
really  indicated  a  tendency  to  rational  thought,  how  could  we 
explain  the  entire  want  of  progress  in  the  brute  world  ?  The 
swallow  builds  her  nest,  and  the  beaver  his  dam,  exactly  as 
they  did  in  the  time  of  Abraham.  As  they  build,  so  they 
must  build,  and  they  neither  need  nor  are  able  to  learn  their 
art  from  any  one.  Man  must  laboriously  learn  how  to  shape 
the  creations  of  his  industry ;  but  he  is  compensated  for  this 
by  the  capability  of  infinite  improvement,  showing  that  the 
constitution  of  his  mind  is  an  infinite  one  given  him  by  God. 
There  is  not  much  difference  between  the  hands  of  men  and 
apes.  How  is  it,  then,  that  man  has  made  the  whole  of  nature 
subject  to  him  by  means  of  this  instrument,  whilst  the  ape 
has  not  yet  been  able  to  make  even  a  stone  axe  ?  The  beast 
shows  a  certain  gift  of  observation  and  memory ;  it  can  dis¬ 
tinguish  the  succession  of  certain  phenomena.  But  can  it 
ever  find  out  the  laiu  which  governs  these  events  ?  The  beast 
has  perceptions  of  pain  and  pleasure  which  are  conveyed  to  it 
by  the  outward  senses.  But  can  it  call  up  these  feelings 
wfithout  a  direct  sensuous  impression  ?  Hence  the  beast  has 
no  language.  The  gorilla,  for  instance,  is  not  deficient  in  the 
organs  of  voice.  But  why  is  it  that,  with  a  throat  similar  .to 
that  of  man,  he  can  only  howl  and  whine,  and  that  man,  with 
a  throat  like  the  ape’s,  can  speak  and  sing  so  delightfully  ?  ^ 
The  answer  is,  that  the  beast  cannot  form  an  objective  notion  of 
his  sensations  and  feelings,  and  therefore  is  unable  to  repro¬ 
duce  them  in  language ;  it  cannot  distinguish  between  a 
personal  Ego  and  the  momentary  sensation.  It  is  the  power 
*  Cf.  also  Kougemont,  Dcr  MenscJi  und  der  Affe,  p.  47. 


154  MODERN  NON-BIELICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [lECT.  IlL 


to  do  tins,  and  not  his  organs  of  voice  (for  even  the  deaf  and 
dumb  make  a  language  for  themselves),  which  gives  man  the 
faculty  of  speech.  It  is  this,  the  self-conscious  spirit,  in  virtue 
of  which  he  involuntarily  feels  himself,  as  compared  with  any 
other  created  being,  of  infinitely  greater  dignity  and  value. 

And  what  shall  we  say  of  man’s  distinctive  moral  and 
religious  disposition,  and  its  development !  Who  can  seriously 
speak  of  the  moral  attributes  of  beasts  ?  Could  any  training 
ever  bring  a  beast  to  a  moral  perception  of  good  and  evil  ? 
The  doer  is  ashamed  when  he  is  caught  thievincf,  that  is,  he  is 
afraid  of  blows ;  the  man  is  ashamed  of  himself  The  beast 
sees  and  feels  nothing  but  nature,  the  world  of  finite  things. 
It  has  no  knowledge  of  God  ;  it  perceives  nothing  of  the 
divine  government  of  the  world ;  it  sees  and  feels  nothing  of 
any  higher  purposes,  aims,  or  ideals. 

Does  all  this  constitute  merely  a  difference  in  point  of 
degree,  and  not  rather  an  immeasurable  specific  difference 
between  the  thoughts,  feeling.s,  and  desires  of  men  and  those 
of  beasts  ?  In  the  latter,  we  see  the  consciousness  of  a  soul 
unenlightened  by  any  beam  of  the  spirit,  obscure  and  incap¬ 
able  of  forming  the  conception  of  an  Ego ;  in  the  former,  real 
sclf-conscioiisncss.  In  the  latter,  we  have  mere  natural  im¬ 
pulses,  directed  towards  the  satisfaction  of  material  wants, 
and  serving  no  other  purpose  than  the  maintenance  of  the 
genus,  for  which  reason  the  individual  beast  as  such  has  no 
value ;  in  the  former,  we  have  the  moral  consciousness  of  a 
person  who  possesses  in  himself  the  purpose  of  his  existence, 
and  is  therefore  of  infinite  value  and  eternal  significance.  In 
short,  in  one  case  there  is  a  living  but  irrational  soul ;  in  the 
other,  the  rational,  GodTlike  spirit.  All  these  higher  achieve¬ 
ments  on  the  part  of  beasts  belong  to  the  sowi-life  as  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  the  spirit ;  because  the  illuminating  centre  of 
self-consciousness  ps  wanting  in  them.  The  Holy  Scriptures 
themselves  attribute  to  beasts  a  soul  as  the  vital  principle  of 
the  corporal  organism.  The  phenomena  in  the  life  of  man, 
on  the  contrary,  all  point  to  some  higher  power,  a  substance 
that  marks  him  as  superior  to  all  mere  animal  life,  and  gives 
to  his  intellect  the  self-conscious  clearness  and  power,  and  to 
his  actions  a  moral  value ;  and  this  is  the  God-descended 
spirit,  which  is  not  only  distinct  from  the  soul,  but  can  even 


LECT.  III.] 


MATEEIALISM. 


155 


be  practically  opposed  to  its  inclinations,  in  virtue  of  its  own 
higher  law.  Hence  the  scriptural  doctrine,  that ‘man  consists 
of  body,  soul,  awrZ  spirit.  (1  Thess.  v.  23  ;  Heb.  iv.  12,  ct  al.) 

This  Materialism  completely  ignores  ;  hence  its  incapability 
to  explain  the  fundamental  difference  between  the  merely 
animal  and  the  human  soul-life.  If,  however,  this  difference 
consists  essentially  in  self-consciousness,  there  now  arises  a 
fresh  and  insuperable  objection  to  the  substantial  unity  of 
brain  and  thought,  viz.  that  no  explanation  can  then  he  given 
as  to  the  origin  of  self-consciousness  in  man.  Granted  that  the 
individual  acts  of  our  soul-life  all  resulted  from  nothin"  but 

O 

chemico-physical  causes,  it  can  never  be  denied  that  these 
acts  are  all  rooted  in  a  certain  fixed,  permanent  centre,  in 
‘‘the  idea  of  th^  Ego  as  the  basis  of  all  thought;”  that  is,  in 
self-consciousness.  Whence  then  is  this  ?  This  centre  is  not 
identical  with  the  individual  acts  of  thought ;  for  it  is  not  an 
isolated  act,  but  a  continuous  condition.  Materialism,  it  is 
true,  would  fain  make  it  identical  with  thouo-ht,  but  a^ain 
in  opposition  to  all  experience.  Eor  do  we  not  clearly  dis¬ 
tinguish  ourselves  in  self-consciousness  from  anv  definite  act 
of  thought  ?  Are  there  not  conditions  in  Avhich  correct 

O 

reasoning  is  coexistent  with  perturbed  consciousness  ?  And 
vice  versa,  is  there  not  sometimes  a  continuance  of  conscious¬ 
ness  notwithstanding  the  cessation  of  intellectual  activity  ? 
The  materialist,  who  will  hear  of  no  operative  factor  except 
the  individual  agencies, — brain,i  muscles,  nerves,  etc., — and 
who  denies  as  an  empty  abstraction  the  bond  which  unites 
these  separate  agents,  and  preserves  its  own  unity  amid  all 
the  changes  of  thought  and  perception, — that  is,  the  self- 
consciousness,  or  the  personality  as  such, — makes  out  man 
to  be  a  “  purely  mechanical  lay-figure,”  or  as  Czolbe  openly 
admits,  Ta  piece  of  mosaic,  mechanically  constructed  from 
various  atoms,” — a  theory  which  explains  absolutely  nothing 
of  the  practical  phenomena  of  soul-life. 

The  whole  foundation  of  materialism  is  thus  shown  to  be 
simply  an  audacious  sophism,  the  most  arbitrary,  because 
unproved  and  absolutely  improvable,  of  assumptions,  which  is 
contradicted  at  every  turn  by  our  own  consciousness.  “  I  do 
not  wish,”  says  Schleiden,  in  opposition  to  Materialism,  “  to 
puzzle  these  gentlemen  with  the  task  of  unfolding  to  me  in 


156  MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [lECT.  IIL 


detail  the  process  whereby,  for  instance,  the  feeling  for  beauty 
is  actually  secreted  in  the  brain.  All  I  want  them  to  do  is 
to  prove  to  me  the  vossihility  that,  some  day  at  least,  w'e  may 
be  able  to  recognise  the  very  simplest  idea,  as  for  instance, 
tree,  law,  etc.,  as  a  chemical  element  present  in  the  brain, 
or  as  a  combination  of  such.  But  a  naturalist  who  judges 
and  decides  as  to  the  nature  of  things,  the  possibility  of  which 
(to  say  nothing  of  their  reality)  he  is  not  in  a  position  to 
demonstrate,  appears  in  this  respect  not  an  exact  investigator 
of  nature,  but  merely  a  superficial  talker.”  And  these  people, 
in  their  opposition  to  Christianity,  are  fond  of  talking  of 
“  ploughman’s  faith,”  although  in  truth  more  faith  in  authority 
is  needed  for  the  acceptance  of  their  hypothesis  than  for 
believimj  all  the  miracles  of  the  Bible  ! 

We  might  conclude  wuth  this ;  but  let  us  first  glance  at 
the  consequences  of  the  materialistic  principles.  First  and 
foremost,  it  is  clear  that  they  do  away  with  the  immortality 
of  the  soul  and  all  belief  in  another  world.  For  he  who  does 
not  acknowledge  any  immaterial  principles  in  man,  will  not 
allow  the  existence  of  an  absolute  Spirit,  i.e.  of  God,  either  in 
or  above  the  world.  The  ideas  of  God  as  a  Spirit  and  of  the 
human  spirit  as  a  distinct  substance  are  inseparable,  and  for 
this  reason  we  w^ere  obliged  carefully  to  investigate  the  latter 
question.  Every  one  sees  what  questionable  results  follow 
from  the  negation  of  our  immortality,  even  as  regards  this  life, 
and  the  moral  order  of  the  present  world.  We  will  not  now 
enter  into  the  details  of  the  well-known  arguments  for  the 
immortality  of  the  soul,  the  main  purport  of  which  is  that 
God  is  a  Spirit,  and  that  man’s  soul  is  a  breath  of  this  Spirit, 
proceeding  therefore  from  above  and  not  from  below ;  that  it 
is  an  entity  absolutely  incomposite,  indivisible,  and  immaterial ; 
and  that  its  immateriality  becomes  more  and  more  evident  the 
longer  it  is  exposed  to  the  impotent  attempts  made  to  degrade 
it  to  the  level  of  mere  matter.  We  would,  however,  point 
out  in  passing,  that  it  is  precisely  the  most  exact  modern 
research  which  increasingly  tends  to  enhance  and  perfect  the 
ancient  arguments  lor  immortality  derived  from  nature,  from 
the  analogy  of  the  spring,  the  grub,  and  butterfly,  etc.  Here 
is  an  example.  It  has  been  observed  that  the  larva  of  the 
male  stag-beetle,  when  it  becomes  a  chrysalis,  constructs  a 


LECT.  III.] 


MATEEIALISM. 


157 


larger  case  than  it  needs  to  contain  its  curled-np  body,  in 
order  that  the  horns,  which  will  presently  grow,  may  also  find 
room.  What  does  the  larva  know  of  its  future  form  of  exist¬ 
ence  ?  and  yet  it  arranges  its  house  with  a  view  to  it !  Is  it 
then  to  be  supposed  that  the  same  Power,  which  created  both 
the  beetle  and  the  man,  “  instilled  into  the  hcetle  a  true  instinct, 
and  into  man  a  lying  faith,  which  makes  him  arrange  his 
present  life  with  a  view  to  a  future  one  otherwise  than  he 
would  were  this  not  the  case, — a  faith  which  arises  as  natu¬ 
rally,  and  is  as  necessary  for  the  development  of  mankind,  as 
instinct  in  the  larva  ?  ”  (Euete  ut  siqora). 

If  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  soul,  not  only  would  a  future 
life  be  done  away  with,  and  all  religion  be  merged  in  the 
worship  of  this  world, — we  pastors  becoming  the  most  useless 
of  all  creatures, — but  you  will  also  perceive  what  revolutions 
must  follow  in  the  whole  mode  which  has  hitherto  obtained 
of  conducting  our  life,  most  of  all  in  education.  If  thought  is 
a  secretion  of  the  brain,  produced  from  our  nourishment  by 
means  of  a  kind  of  fermentation  or  filtration,  or  in  some  other 
way,  we  can  breed  youths  at  our  pleasure  to  be  warriors,  philo¬ 
sophers,  musicians,  and  the  like  ;  and  the  most  important  ques¬ 
tion  for  a  teacher  would  always  be,  whether  to  feed  his  pupil 
to-day  on  roa.st  veal  or  roast  beef,  on  this  or  that  kind  of  food 
and  drink.  Those  who  are  slow  of  understanding  ought  to  eat 
large  quantities  of  peas,  fish,  eggs,  and  other  phosphoric  food, 
in  order  to  increase  and  accelerate  their  powers  of  thought. 

But  we  are  left  in  no  doubt  whatever  on  the  point,  that 
everything  which  has  hitherto  been  cherished  and  cultivated, 
as  manners  and  morality,  as  freedom  of  the  spirit  and  of  the 
will,  must  sink  into  the  grave  of  a  fatalistic  necessity.  We 
sec  clearly  how  thoroughly  and  with  iclmt  shameless  audacity 
Materialism  ivould  destroy  all  the  moral  facidties  of  our  life, — 
for  instance,  in  the  words  of  Moleschott,  that  “  sin  lies  in 
the  Unnatural,  and  not  in  the  will  to  do  evil.  Speech  and 
style,  good  and  bad  actions,  courage,  half-heartednes.s,  and 
treachery,  are  all  natural  phenomena,  and  all  of  them  stand 
in  a  direct  relation  to  indispensable  causes  as  their  natural 
consequences,  just  as  much  as  the  revolutions  of  the  globe.” 
“  The  brain  alters  with  the  ages ;  and  with  the  brain,  custom, 
which  is  the  standard  of  morals,  is  altered  also.”  “  Wicked- 


158  MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [lECT.  III. 

ness  in  individuals,  like  the  whole  man  himself,  is  therefore 
only  a  natural  phenomenon.  And  as  the  words,  '  Thou  shalt 
love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself,’  form  the  pith  of  Christian 
morals,  so  the  first  maxim  of  the  modern  gospel  should  be, 
‘  To  understand  everything  is  to  tolerate  everything  ’  ”  {ut  supr. 
p.  466).  At  the  end  of  his  book  Moleschott  vouchsafes  to 
the  world  the  sapient  and  delicate-minded  advice,  that  the 
stationary  churchyards,  in  which  so  much  e.xcellent  manure 
remains  useless,  should  he  changed  into  moveable  churchyards, 
in  order  that  the  dead  may  attain  the  only  immortality  which 
now  remains  open  to  them,  and  have  the  privilege  of  impreg¬ 
nating  barren  ground  with  ammonia,  carbonic  acid,  etc.,  to 
help  towards  the  production  and  nourishment  of  fresh  men  ! 
Paine,  one  of  the  latest  French  materialists,  pronounces  man 
to  be  a  beast  in  human  {sic)  shape,  which  is  led  by  humour 
and  instinct.  “  Humour  and  instinct  proceed  from  the  blood. 
Hence  arises  habit;  necessity  brandishes  the  whip,  and  the 
beast  goes  forward.  But  being  full  of  pride  and  conceit,  the 
beast  fancies  that  it  moves  in  accordance  with  its  own  will, 
and  that  there  is  no  whip  urging  it  forward.  We  fancy  that 
we  govern  our  passions,  but  in  reality  they  govern  us ;  and  we 
ascribe  to  ourselves  the  actions  which  they  have  produced.” 
Vogt,  however,  has,  as  he  always  does,  expressed  himself  on 
this  point  most  unequivocally  and  unconcernedly  of  all.  “  It 
is  indeed  true.  Freewill  does  not  exist,  neither  does  any 
amenability  or  responsibility,  such  as  morals  and  penal  justice, 
and  Heaven  knows  what  else  would  impose  upon  us.  At  no 
moment  are  we  our  own  masters  any  more  than  we  can  decree 
as  to  the  secretions  of  our  kidneys.  The  organism  cannot 
govern  itself ;  it  is  governed  by  the  law  of  its  material  com¬ 
bination.  It  is  impossible  to  demonstrate  the  admissibility  of 
punishment,  or  to  prove  that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  amen¬ 
ability  or  responsibility,”  etc. 

Jurists,  therefore,  do  not  fare  any  better  than  we  theologians. 
It  is  evident  that  there  is  no  room  for  them  in  the  world  now. 
There  is  no  right  to  punish,  for  there  is  no  responsibility ; 
everything  takes  place  under  an  iron  necessity.  The  man  who 
robs  and  murders  is  no  worse  than  the  falling  stone  which 
crushes  a  man,  nor,  of  course,  any  more  valuable ;  both  are 
involuntary  slaves  of  the  law  of  nature.  Criminals  should  be 


LECT.  III.] 


MATEPJALISM. 


159 


sent  into  hospitals  and  asylums,  not  to  prison.  The  judge 
must  yield  up  his  place  to  the  j^hysician !  Who  would  not 
then  begin  to  tremble  for  the  safety  of  society  ?  Who  does 
not  perceive  the  moral  danger  involved  in  Materialism,  accord¬ 
ing  to  which  all  human  action,  even  that  of  the  mind  and 
spirit,  is  subordinate  to  the  law  of  nature,  and  man  no  longer 
does  what  he  ought  to  do,  but  what  he  must  do, — according  to 
wliich,  therefore,  all  the  great  and  noble  acts  performed  in  the 
world’s  history  are  nothing  but  the  necessary  products  of  certain 
bodily  impulses  and  conditions  ?  But  the  whole  matter  assumes 
an  exceedingly  tragi co- comical  aspect  wdien  we  find  these 
people  desirous  to  be  thought  the  “  squatters  of  advancing 
civilisation,”  without  observing  that  they  are  its  gravediggers; 
and  see  them  swaggering  as  the  heralds  of  freedom  and  humanity, 
whilst  it  does  not  occur  to  them  that  they  are  the  apostles  of 
the  most  hrutal  tyranny,  and  that  the  practical  aim  of  their 
theory  is  that  the  best-organized  beast,  called  man,  should  sit 
alone  on  the  throne  of  unfettered  self-deification  and  unchecked 
self-gratification.  Bor  if  man  is  nothing  but  a  beast  without 
a  future,  and  organized  merely  for  the  full  enjoyment  of  his 
present  existence,  then  all  that  we  have  hitherto  stupidly  con¬ 
sidered  to  be  virtue  is  only  a  sin  against  our  destiny !  Jus¬ 
tice,  duty,  honour,  self-sacrifice,  compassion,  etc.,  are  morbid 
secretions  of  certain  deranged  lobes  of  the  brain  !  What  good 
is  my  fellow-man  to  me  ?  To  subject  and  tyrannize  all  others 
is  the  only  aim  which  reasonable  man  can  pursue  !  Such 
maxims  carried  into-  practice  would  render  society  a  mere  con¬ 
geries  of  atoms. 

In  good  sooth,  the  materialists  are  the  most  dangerous  enemies 
of  progress  that  the  world  has  ever  seen.  For  all  progress  in 
the  last  resort  depends  on  the  ideal  of  an  Infinite  Perfection, 
to  which  the  God-derived  spirit  of  man  aspires.  He  who 
destroys  this  ideal  destro3"s  progress  also.  But  this  ideal  is 
destroyed  when  health  and  sensual  enjoyments  are  held  up  to 
our  race  as  the  sole  aim  of  life,  within  which  we  are  to  move 
in  an  eternal  circle ! 

In  the  face  of  these  apparent  consequences,  we  are  in  this 
case,  too,  really  led  to  doubt  whether  these  gentlemen  them¬ 
selves  believe  what  they  are  trying  to  palm  off  upon  us.  Why 
do  they  seek  to  work  upon  the  people  by  means  of  lectures 


160  MODERIT  NOX-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [lECT.  IIL 


and  books  ?  The  proper  way  to  convert  people  to  their  opinions 
would  be  to  make  them  eat  the  same  food  as  they  do !  Just 
imagine  a  soulless  professor,  with  the  utmost  ingenuity,  demon¬ 
strating  to  soulless  students  from  his  professorial  chair  that 
they  have  no  souls  I  Is  not  the  wiseacre  contradicted  out  of 
his  own  mouth  by  every  word  he  utters,  since  every  one  of  his 
words  is  addressed  to  the  souls  of  his  audience  ?  In  fact,  my 
honoured  hearers,  if  any  one  among  you  has  brought  with  him 
flesh,  blood,  bone,  some  phosphorus,  and  nothing  else,  I  would 
make  bold  to  intimate  to  him  in  a  friendly  way  that  all  argu¬ 
ments,  as  far  as  he  is  concerned,  are  but  lost  time. 

Doubtless,  however,  there  is  something  true  and  justifiable 
in  Materialism.  All  that  exists  has  some  right  to  its  existence. 
We  would  not  deny  this.  Materialism  calls  our  attention 
more  closely  than  in  former  days  to  the  profound  inter¬ 
penetration  of  our  soul-life  and  our  bodily  condition,  and  to 
the  fact  that  the  activity  of  our  mind  and  will  is  partly  deter¬ 
mined  by  bodily  functions, — the  circulation  of  the  blood,  the 
action  of  the  nerves,  etc. ;  in  a  word,  to  the  unquestionably 
very  important  influence  exercised  by  material  agents,  both 
within  and  without  us,  on  our  mental  condition.  Materialism 
may  thus  teach  a  lesson,  especially  to  those  one-sided  idealists 
whom  we  were  before  compelled  to  blame  for  looking  upon 
their  reason  as  something  always  absolutely  free  in  its  nature, 
without  believing  in  their  dependence  on  material  influences. 
This  one-sided  spiritualism  of  necessity  degenerates  in  time 
into  its  opposite,  that  is,  into  ]\Iaterialisra.  •  The  latter,  then, 
forms  a  wholesome  counterbalance  to  that  system  of  philosophy 
in  which  the  “  idea”  was  all  in  all,  and  in  which  the  inquirer 
was  so  taken  up  by  speculations  of  pure  reason  as  not  to  have 
time  for  any  consideration  of  nature.  Any  future  sound  sys¬ 
tem  of  natural  philosophy  will  have  to  seek  the  right  course 
between  these  two  extremes. 

The  Holy  Scriptures,  on  the  other  hand,  which  observe  an 
equal  distance  between  these  extremes,  fully  recognise  this 
truth  of  the  interpenetration  of  our  soul-life  with  our  bodily 
condition.  They  point  out,  with  much  emphasis,  the  pre¬ 
dominance  which,  by  means  of  sin,  the  flesh  has  attained  over 
the  spirit,  the  constant  bondage  and  danger  which  the  soul 
incurs  from  sensual  inclination.s, — in  a  word,  “  the  law  of  sin 


LECT.  III.] 


PANTHEISM. 


161 


in  the  members”  (Eom.  vii.);  and  in  teaching  our  natural  sub¬ 
jection  to  the  power  of  sensuality,  they  bring  clearly  before  our 
eyes  the  truth  which  is  involved  in  the  materialistic  denial 
of  freewill.  But  the  Holy  Scriptures  do  not  lead  us  into  a 
comfortless  fatalism,  but  show  us  the  way  in  which  the  spirit 
may  again  attain  to  predominance  and  freedom.  But  it  is 
one  thing  to  acknowledge  these  bodily  influences  and  another 
to  identify  the  soul  with  them, — to  deny  its  separate  existence, 
and  thus  to  tread  into  the  dust  man’s  crown,  the  basis  of  all 
that  is  truly  great  and  hanourable,  all  that  is  high  and  God-like, 
'  in  and  above  the  world. 

If  theories  of  this  kind  appeared  only  among  morally  fickle 
and  degraded  nations,  whose  whole  development,  or  rather  mis- 
development,  would  naturally  lead  to  them,  we  might,  though 
with  deep  compassion,  look  on  quietly.  But  the  busy  efforts  of 
many,  in  modern  times,  to  naturalize  a  materialistic  popular 
philosophy,  even  on  our  German  soil,  must  be  characterized  by 
every  one  who  is  aware  of  the  profound  ideality  of  the  German 
mind,  and  of  GQrman  Christian  science  and  education,  and  who 
knows  how  for  the  last  ten  centuries  Germans  have  done  battle 
for  the  highest  pioral  and  spiritual  treasures  of  life,  as  an  act  of 
treason  against  the  original  and  true  nature  of  German  research 
and  scienee !  To  similar  opponents  in  his  own  time,  Plato 
gave  the  counsel,  “  first  to  reform,  so  that  then  they  might  be 
capable  of  being  taught.”  The  Christian  spirit  of  Germany, 
inheriting  as  it  does  the  ideal  impulses  of  the  mind  of  ancient 
Greece,  should  give  the  same  answer  to  the  theories  we  have 
been  considering. 


III. - PANTHEISM. 

Pantheism  derives  its  name  from  the  motto,  ev  koX  irav,  i.e. 
One  and  All,  which  was  first  brought  into  vogue  by  the  Greek 
philosopher  Xenophanes.  According  to  this  view,  God  is  the 
universe  itself ;  heyond  and  outside  the  world  He  does  not  exist, 
l)ut  only  in  the  world.  He  is  the  Soul,  the  Beason  and  the 
Spirit  of  the  world,  and  all  nature  is  His  body.  In  reality, 
God  is  everything,  and  beside  him  there  is  nothing.  Thus, 
making  God  the  Soul  of  the  world.  Pantheism  is  distinguished, 

L 


162  MODERN  NON-DIBLICAL  CONCEBTIONS  OF  GOD.  [lECT.  III. 


on  the  one  hand,  from  Materialism,  according  to  which  God 
and  nature  are  immediately  identical ;  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
from  Theism,  that  is,  from  the  belief  in  a  self-conscions,  per- 
soual  God,  who  created  the  world  and  guides  even  its  most 
minute  details.  Tor  the  main  poipt  of  pantheistic  belief  is 
that  this  Soul  of  the  world  is  not  a  forsonal,  self-conscious 
Being,  who  appears  in  his  totality  in  any  one  phenomenon  or 
at  any  one  moment,  so  as  to  compreliend  himself  or  become 
comprehensible  for  us,  but  that  it  is  only  the  One  ever  same 
Essence  which,  filling  everything  and  shaping  everything,  lives 
and  moves  in  all  existing  things,  and  is  revealed  in  all  that  is 
visible,  yet  is  Itself  never  seen.  Goethe  has  depicted  it  in  the 
oft-quoted  words : — 

I  rise  and  fall  on  the  waA’^es  of  life, 

I  moA^e  to  and  fro  in  action’s  strife  ; 

Birth  and  tlie  grave, — an  eternal  sea, — 

A  AA'eh  that  changes  alternately, — 

A  life  AA’hich  must  CA'cr  glow  and  burn,— 

On  the  Avhirring  loom  of  life,  in  turn 
All  these  I  Aveave,  and  the  Godhead  see 
Clad  in  a  robe  of  vitality.” 

« 

The  fact  that  this  view  of  the  world  is  first  met  with  among 
nations  with  polytheistic  religions,  such  as  the  Hindus  and 
Greeks,  points  to  an  internal  rclationshi'p  Ictivccn  Polytheism 
and  Pantheism  ivhich  is  often  ovcrloohccl.  The  two  seem  opposed; 
but,  when  accurately  considered,  they  are  in  principle  the  same. 
Just  as,  e.y.,  the  ordinary  Greeks  believed  that  there  was  a 
nymph  or  a  naiad  in  every  tree  and  in  every  fountain,  and, 
in  addition  to  the  Olympian  gods,  peopled  all  nature  with 
innumerable  demi-gods ;  so  also,  in  every  being  and  in  every 
phenomenon  the  Greek  pantheistic  philosopher  saw  a  mani¬ 
festation  of  the  Deity,  rantheism  and  Polytheism  are  but  a 
higher  and  a  lower  form  of  one  and  the  same  view  of  the 
world.  The  former  is  the  refined,  the  latter  the  vulgar  mode 
of  deifying  nature ;  the  former  seeks  after  unity  amid  the 
individual  phenomena,  the  latter  stops  short  at  and  personifies 
them. 

We  have  previously  alluded  to  the  fact  that  this  One,  All- 
inspiring,  yet  Unconscious,  is  characterized  by  Pantheism  in 
various  ways,  as  the  Soul  of  the  world,  as  universal  Substance, 


LECT.  III.] 


PANTHEISM. 


163 


as  the  Moral  Order  of  the  world,  as  Absolute  Spirit,  etc.*  The 
father  of  occidental  Pantheism  in  modern  times  was  the  Jew 
Spinoza  (1632-1677).  “I  have,”  says  he,  “opinions  as  to 
God  and  nature  entirely  different  from  those  which  modern 
Christians  are  wont  to  vindicate.  To  my  mind  God  is  the 
immanent  (that  is,  the  intramundane),  and  not  the  transcendent 
(that  is,  the  supramundane)  Cause  of  all  things ;  that  is,  the 
totality  of  finite  objects  is  posited  in  the  Essence  of  God,  and  not 
in  His  Will.  Nature,  considered  per  se,  is  one  with  the  essence 
of  God.”  According  to  Spinoza,  God  is  the  one  universal  Sub¬ 
stance,  in  which  all  distinctions  and  all  isolated  qualifications 
are  resolved  into  unity,  to  which  per  se  we  cannot  therefore 
ascribe  either  tinderstanding  or  will.  He  ridicules  those  who 
make  out  that  God  acts  according  to  a  purpose,  and  look  upon 
the  world  as  a  product  of  the  divine  will  or  intellect.  “  God 
does  not  act  in  pursuance  of  a  purpose,  but  only  according  to 
the  necessity  of  His  nature.  Everything  follows  from  nature 
with  the  same  logical  necessity  as  that  by  which  the  attributes 
of  a  thing  follow  from  its  idea,  or  from  the  nature  of  a  triangle 
that  its  three  angles  are  equal  to  two  right  angles.”  This 
expresses  the  fundamental  view  of  every  form  of  Pantheism. 
Even  Hegel’s  conception  of  God,  as  the  absolute  Idea  or  the 
absolute  Spirit  which,  in  eternal  self-movement,  proceeds  from 
itself  and  becomes  nature,  and  then  again  reverting  to  Itself, 
becomes  a  self-conscious  spirit,  is,  in  truth,  only  another  name 
for  the  same  thing.  For  Spinoza  himself  distinguishes  be¬ 
tween  nature  “  begetting”  and  “  begotten”  (yiatiira  naturans 
ct  natwata).  The  latter  is  the  ever-varying  phenomenal  world, 
the  “  former”  the  intermittent  bourne  fiom  which  these  phe¬ 
nomena  take  their  rise,  and  into  which  they  sink  again. 

From  this  we  can  already  see  how  much  falls  to  the  ground 
if  the  personality  of  God  be  given  up.  In  the  first  place,  we 
can  no  longer  acknowledge  a  creation  of  the  world  as  a  free 

*  There  is  even  a  form  of  Pantheism,  or  rather  of  semi- Pantheism,  in  which 
the  personality  of  God  is  to  some  extent  preserved,  which  looks  upon  the  world 
as  an  efflux  from  the  Deity,  and  hence  as  being  of  His  essence,  hut  not  coexten¬ 
sive  with  Him.  Thus,  for  instance,  the  doctrine  of  emanations  in  the  Indian 
Vedas.  But  here,  too,  the  personality  ol  God  is  dangerously  compromised  by 
the  necessity  of  the  natural  process  in  which  these  emanations  take  place.  Since, 
however, .this  view  has  no  representatives  of  importance  in  modern  times,  we 
shall  coniine  our  attention  to  the  above-mentioned  form  of  Pantheism, 


164  MODEllN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [lECT.  III. 


act  of  the  divine  Will ;  since  things  are  “  posited  in  the 
nature  of  God,  not  in  His  will.”  Miracles  and  providence  must 
fare  in  like  manner,  and  especially  the  incarnation  of  God  in 
Christ  is  left  without  any  basis.  It  can  no  longer  be  looked 
upon  as  a  fact  which  took  place  in  this  particular  Individual, 
but  only  as  a  universal,  everlasting  and  daily-renewed  process. 
There  is  no  longer  any  place  for  the  freewill  of  man,  and  for 
the  ordinary  distinction  between  good  and  evil.  If  God  has 
no  liberty  of  action,  but  works  “in  accordance  with  the  mere 
necessity  of  His  nature,”  man  fares  no  better ;  he  is,  indeed, 
nothing  but  one  form  of  manifestation  of  the  universal  Soul ; 
and  the  necessity  under  which  the  whole  universe  is  developed 
must  also  be  the  standard  for  every  individual  thing.  Every¬ 
thing  is  borne  along  by  the  one  immutable  stream  of  develop¬ 
ment  ;  all  that  takes  place  is  the  consequence  of  an  absolute 
necessity;  and  that  which  appears  to  be  evil  is  only  a  necessary 
point  of  transition  in  the  development  of  good,  and  therefore 
is  not  really  evil  at  all.  Einally,  it  is  patent  that  the  immor¬ 
tality  of  man,  and  the  continuance  of  personal  existence  after 
death,  are  ideas  which  must  henceforth  be  rejected.  All  per¬ 
sonal  life  imist  again  resolve  itself  into  the  impersonal  primal 
Cause.  Religion  itself  can  no  longer  he  considered  a  rccdity. 
For  I  can  no  more  stand  in  any  personal  relation  to  this  God 
than  He  can  to  me ;  I  cannot  address  Him  as  “  thou  f  for  He 
is  no  personal  I ;  I  can  neither  pray  to  Him  nor  can  I  love 
and  trust  in  Him,  for  He  is  only  the  One,  the  inflexible  and 
unfeeling  power  of  fate,  in  which  I  myself  must  one  day  be 
merged. 

Clearly,  we  may  call  this  an  unbiblical  idea  of  God.  In 
the  Scriptures  God  appears  from  the  beginning  as  One  who 
acts  with  self-consciousness,  who  creates  and  guides  the  world 
with'  deflnite  purposes,  whose  essence,  therefore,  is  clearly  to 
be  distinguished  from  His  creation.  He  communicates  Him¬ 
self  in  special  revelations,  speaks  of  Himself  in  the  first 
person,  carries  out  an  eternal  counsel  of  love,  and  there¬ 
fore  cannot  be  imagined  as  any  other  than  a  personal  Being. 
(Cf.  Lect.  iv.) 

Pantheism  is,  however,  not  merely  unbiblical,  but,  like  every 
idea  of  God  which  denies  His  personality,  also  scientifically 
untcnahle.  Allow  me  to  prove  this  to  you,  by  exhibiting  its 


LECT.  III.] 


PANTHEISM. 


165 


cliief  weaknesses  from  four  different  points  of  view,  viz. :  (a) 
from  logic,  (h)  from  a  consideration  of  the  world,  (c)  from  the 
history  of  religions,  and  {d)  from  moral  and  religious  conscious¬ 
ness  and  life. 

(a)  Let  us  first  ask  pliilosophy  and  logic.  Just  as  Atheism 
depends  on  the  monstrous  assumption  that  we  are  accpiaiiited 
with  all  the  forces  in  the  world ;  j  ust  as  Materialism  pre¬ 
supposes  that  the  matter  of  udiich  the  vjorld  is  constituted  is 
eternal  and  has  always  existed  ; — so  also  Pantheism  depends 
on  assumptions  which  are  unproved  and  incapahle  of  proof.  Let 
us  take  up  Spinoza’s  Ethics,  the  classical  text-book  of  modern 
pantheists,  which  to  some  extent  forms  the  groundwork  of  all 
their  systems.  Its  fundamental  assuriiption  is  the  existence 
of  a  universal  substance.  This  substance,  with  its  attributes — 
i.e.,  in  fact,  this  idea  of  God — is  presupposed  as  a  thing  of 
course,  and  from  this  the  further  conclusions  are  deduced  with 
mathematical  precision.  The  thing  itself  is,  however,  simply 
presupposed  or  assumed  to  exist,  and  its  acceptance  therefore 
requires  as  much  faith  as  the  utterances  of  the  Scriptures  about 
God.  Spinoza  does  not  attempt  to  investigate  whether  this 
idea  of  God  is  in  itself  correct  and  true.  Had  he  done  so,  he 
might  have  discovered  that  this  universal  substance,  beside 
which  nothing  at  all  exists,  which  includes  all  actual  objects 
as  its  individual  qualifications,  is  in  truth  nothing  but  the 
highest  logical  conception  of  universality,  in  which  all  individual 
notions  are  blended  into  an  undivided  unity,  and  hence  that  it 
is  merely  a  subjective  idea,  but  not  a  real  objective  existence. 
But  our  philosopher  immediately  assumes,  in  the  most  un¬ 
critical  manner,  that  this  merely  subjective  idea  is  an  objective 
reality,  and  that  the  merely  imagined  unity  of  notions  in 
our  consciousness  is  the  actually  existing  unity  of  all  things. 
Here,  then,  we  see  the  same  confusion  of  thought  with  existence 
which  we  meet  with  almost  at  every  turn  in  modern  philosophy. 
“  Spinoza’s  whole  system,”  says  a  modern  critic,  “  depends  on 
the  postulate,  that  the  logic  form  of  the  notion  and  its  attri¬ 
butes  is  identical  with  the  objective  form  of  real  existence.” 

Both  Spinoza  and  all  other  pantheists  are  greatly  at  a  loss 
how  to  answer  the  question  as  to  the  origin  of  cosmiced  matter ; 
and  on  this  point  it  is  clearly  evident  that  they  ultimately 
depend  on  mere  assumptions,  and  those  illogical  ones.  They 


166  MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [LECT.  III. 


all  of  them  reject  the  biblical  doctrine,  that  God  created  the 
world,  that  is,  from  His  own  free,  loving  will  called  it  into 
existence  out  of  nothing.  For,  since  they  cannot  conceive  of 
God  except  in  conjunction  with  the  world,  they  cannot  believe 
that  He  called  it  into  existence  out  of  its  former  nothingness ; 
His  activity  is  limited  to  shaping  and  organizing  matUr  al¬ 
ready  existing.  But  if  we  go  on  to  ask,  whence  this  matter  ? 
we  are  either  met  with  the  reply,  “it  just  exists,”  and  are 
thus  required  to  accept  without  demur  their  unproved  assump¬ 
tion  as  a  matter  of  fact ;  or,  in  the  attempt  to  explain  the 
origin  of  the  actual  world,  we  are  expected  to  imagine  such 
extraordinary  things,  that  the  biblical  miracle  of  creation  must 
appear  to  every  unprejudiced  person  far  more  reasonable  and 
conceivable.  According  to  Spinoza,  everything  actual  proceeds 
from  the  “  begetting  nature,”  which  from  eternity  is  incessantly 
begetting  the  mundane  phenomena.  But  whence,  then,  its 
inexhaustible  fulness  of  force  and  life  ?  From  what  source  is 
this  vitality  constantly  renewed  ?  The  only  reply  is  to  this 
effect,  that  the  forces  of  “  begotten  nature,”  by  the  mutual 
reaction  in  which  they  play  upon  one  another,  may  effect 
reciprocal  renewal ;  that  the  forces  exhausted  in  begetting 
and  bringing  forth  are  constantly  restored  by  the  reactionary 
influence  of  that  which  is  produced.  But  thus  we  make 
“begotten  nature”  the  mother  as  well  as  the  daughter  of 
“  begetting  nature,”  and  so  are  moving  in  a  complete  circle. 
If  we  demand  the  origin  of  the  actual  world,  that  is,  of  the 
“  begotten  nature,”  we  are  told  that  “  begetting  nature  ”  is  the 
ultimate  cause  ;  and  if  we  demand  the  origin  of  the  latter,  we 
are  again  referred  to  the  “  begotten  nature,”  that  is,  to  the 
very  fact  of  which  we  seek  an  explanation.^  Granted,  how¬ 
ever,  that  these  forces  are  constantly  renewed  by  their  har¬ 
monious  mutual  action,  must  not  this  harmony  he  'planned  hy 
some  intelligence  1  Is  it  to  be  supposed  that  unconscious 
nature  working  by  hlind  necessity  could  have  made  a  com¬ 
putation  of  this  kind  ?  Can  our  intellect  feel  satisfied  with 
the  idea,  that  from  all  eternity  there  exists  a  combined  play  of 
forces  mutually  exciting  and  renovating  one  another,  blind 
indeed,  yet  computed  with  perfect  wisdom  ?  The  absurdity  ot 

’  Cf.  here  also  Zur  Vemntwortiing  des  christl.  Glauhens,  No.  II.,  Aaiu/ 
Oder  GoU?  and  Gess,  apologet.  Beitrdge, 


LECT.  III.] 


PANTHEISM. 


167 


tlie  assumption  of  an  impersonal  unconscious  God  here  be¬ 
comes  clearly  evident.  That  by  which  everything  else  is 
realized  with  absolute  wisdom  is  supposed  to  be  unable  to 
realize  itself  in  conscious  thouQht !  What  a  contradiction  ! 

We  do  not  fare  much  better  under  the  guidance  of  Hegel. 
He  teaches  us  to  regard  God  as  the  absolute,  Idea  which,  from 
endless  ages,  realizes,  inspires,  and  orders  the  whole  pheno¬ 
menal  world  :  in  other  words,  as  the  system  of  those  concep¬ 
tions  on  which  all  thought  is  necessarily  based  {e.g.  being  and 
becoming,  force  and  effect,  etc.),  and  which  are  supposed  to 
possess  reality,  since  without  them  all  our  thought  would  be 
null  and  void.  But  whence  proceeds  this  absolute  Idea  ?  It 
is  not  conceived  by  a  personal  God,  for  none  such  exists. 
Heither  can  it  conceive  itself ;  for  if  it  did,  it  would  become 
self-conscious,  and  thus  God  would  again  become  personal. 
How  does  Hegel  get  out  of  the  difficulty  ?  He  says  that  the 
absolute  Idea  'posits  itself  by  means  of  the  eternal  position  and 
organization  of  the  world.  If  we  inquire.  Whence  proceeds 
the  world  ?  we  are  met  by  the  reply,  It  exists,  and  is 
continuously  posited  by  the  absolute  Idea.  And  if  we  ask. 
Whence  comes  the  absolute  Idea,  from  what  is  it  derived,  and 
in  what  does  its  actuality  consist  ?  we  are  told.  It  is  .posited 
in  and  with  the  world,  and  has  none  but  a  mundane  actuality. 
Do  you  see  how  we  are  being  mocked  with  a  shadow  ?  The 
world  is  supposed  to  be  posited  by  the  absolute  Idea,  and  yet 
the  absolute  Idea  itself  has  an  actual  existence  only  in  the 
world.  How,  then,  can  this  absolute  Idea  posit  itself  ?  and 
how  can  it  be  looked  upon  as  the  principle  which  posits  the 
world  if  itself  attains  actuality  only  in  the  world  ? 

Pantheism  desires  to  realize  the  Infinite ;  but  because  the 
Infinite  always  has  its  actuality  only  in  the  Finite,  the  result 
is,  that  Pantheism  constantly  denies  it  in  its  endeavours  to 
realize  it.  A  close  examination  of  this  “  self-positing  ”  Idea 
clearly  shows  that  the  'pantheistic  conception  of  God  is  one  xchich 
destroys  itself ;  for  that  only  'which  is  conscious  of  itself  can 
posit  itself ;  but  a  being  which  is  possessed  of  sclf-conscioitsncss 
must  also  be  possessed  of  'pcrsoncdity.  .  Tlie  impersonal  idea  of 
God,  in  fact,  depends  upon  a  hypothesis  which  on  a  more 
thorough  consideration  will  be  found  to  point  beyond  itself. 
The  way,  too,  in  which  Hegel  makes  the  Absolute  develop© 


1G8  MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [lECT.  III. 


itself  is  tlioronghly  illogical.  First  of  all,  in  its  existence 
per  se  it  is  a  purely  immaterial  idea  ;  next  it  en.erges  into 
existence  as  distinct  from  itself, distorting  itself  in  time  and 
space,  becomes  nature  ;  then,  from  this  self-alienation  it  reverts 
to  itself,  and  in  man  attains  to  self-existence,  and  becomes  self¬ 
knowing  thought,  or  self-conscious  spirit.  In  this  process  it 
is  only  the  existence  per  se,  and  the  existence  as  distinct  from 
itself,  in  which  the  Idea  is  absolutely  :  in  its  self-existence,  on 
the  contrary,  it  is  only  in  a  finite,  human-psychological  form, 
although  evidently  the  Absolute  should  include  all  three 
forms ;  that  is,  God,  as  a  Spirit,  must  be  His  own  cause.  His 
own  object,  and  the  sidject  which  comprehends,  knows,  and  wills 
Himself. 

Besides  this,  the  pantheistic  idea  of  God  labours  under  two 
other  great  difficulties.  In  the  first  place,  it  cannot  be  under¬ 
stood  how  personality  can  proceed  from  an  impersonal  prin¬ 
ciple.  We  ourselves  are  persons,  that  is,  we  can  conceive  and 
determine  ourselves ;  for  in  this  personality  consists.  And 
although  Spinoza  denies  the  self-determination  and  freewill  of 
man,  still  he  does  not  deny  his  self-consciousness.  Whence, 
then,  is  this  self-consciousness  supposed  to  proceed  if  the  soul 
of  the  world,  from  which  we  ourselves  have  emauated,  has  no 
consciousness  ?  Can  God  communicate  that  which  He  does 
not  Himself  possess,  and  create  forms  of  existence  which 
transcend  His  own  ?  Can  the  effect  contain  anything  which 
does  not  exist  in  the  cause  ?  To  this  one  simple  question 
no  pantheist  has  as  yet  been  able  to  give  a  satisfactory 
answer.  ]\Ioreover,  tlie  idea  of  an  endless  and  aimless  process 
of  development  is  illogical  and  self-contradictory.  An  endless 
development,  an  infinite  process,  which  is  for  ever  approach¬ 
ing  its  aim,  but  eternally  remains  infinitely  far  from  it,  is  a 
contradiction  with  which  our  intellect  cannot  be  satislied. 

The  chief  argument  which  pantheists  bring  forward  against 
the  existence  of  a  personal  God  is,  that  personedity  cannot  he 
conceived  without  finite  limiicdions.  Personality,  they  say, 
consists  in  the  contraposition  of  self  to  another  object,  a  non¬ 
ego  which  forms  an  insuperable  limit  to  the  ego ;  and  hence 
the  conception  of  absolute,  limitless  personality  involves  a 
direct  contradiction.  In  short,  the  infinite  greatness  of  God 
is  supposed  to  be  incompatible  with  His  personality.  To  this 


LECT.  III.]  MODERN  KON-EIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  169 

we  first  reply  by  a  question :  Is  it  in  our  own  case  tlie 
limitation  of  self  by  the  cosmical  non-ego  which  is  the  came, 
of  our  consciousness  reflecting  upon  itself,  and  thus  becoming 
sr^-conscious  or  personal,  so  that  without  the  non-ego  our 
personality  would  cease  'to  exist  ?  No,  this  limitation  is 
merely  the  occasion;  the  original  cause  of  the  self-reflection 
consists  in  the  peculiar  constitution  of  the  human  subject  as 
a  spirit,  which  points  to  a  primal  Spirit-subject  as  its 
Creator. 

The  root  of  personality  in  the  ego  lies  in  its  nature  before 
any  contraposition  to  other  objects.  This  contraposition, 
therefore,  does  not  form  the  essence  of  the  personality,  but  is 
only  a  consequence  of  its  inherent  nature.  Personality,”  says 
a  well-known  modern  philosopher,^  who  has  very  tellingly 
answered  this  objection  to  the  personality  of  God,  “  does  not 
depend  upon  a  past  or  present  contraposition  of  the  ego  to 
the  non-ego ;  but,  conversely,  it  consists  in  an  immediate  esse 
<pcr  se,  forms  the  necessary  q)rius  of  this  contraposition  wher¬ 
ever  it  takes  place.”  If,  then,  even  in  the  finite  subject 
self-consciousness  is  the  result  of  its  oivn  action,  based  upon 
an  esse  loer  se  which  is  not  dependent  on  the  world,  how  much 
less  can  the  absolute  Subject,  God,  by  reason  of  His  personality, 
be  considered  to  be  entirely  dependent  upon,  and  limited  by, 
externals  ?  Doubtless,  in  the  case  of  the  finite  spirit  as  such, 
the  development  of  personal  consciousness  can  only  take  place 
under  external  influences  proceeding  from  the  non-ego;  not, 
however,  because  it  needed  the  contraposition  to  an  alien 
object  in  order  to  be  self-existent,  but  simply  because 'it  does 
not  in  this  nor  in  any  other  respect  possess  in  itself  the 
conditions  of  its  existence.  But  we  do  not  meet  with  this 
limitation  in  the  nature  of  the  Infinite.  “  It  alone,  therefore, 
is  capable  of  a  self-existence,  which  needs  neither  initiation 
nor  continuous  development  by  means  of  anything  which  is 
alien  to  it,  but  maintains  itself  in  an  eternal  movement  within 
its  own  essence.”  And  if  w'e  designate  the  inner  pei'sonal 
life  of  the  personal  God,  the  current  of  His  thought,  feeling, 
and  will,  as  one  that  is  eternal  and  without  beginning,  never 
resting,  and  hence  never  excited  into  movement  from  any 
state  of  quiescence,  “  we  do  not  impose  a  more  difficult  task 
‘  Lotze,  Mlkrohosmos,  i.  p.  270  If. ;  iii.  pp.  565-576. 


PANTHEISM. 


IVO 


[lect.  hi. 


on  the  powers  of  imagination  than  does  any  pantheistic  or 
materialistic  theory.” 

And  why  should  the  idea  of  an  eternal,  absolute  Personality 
he  self-contradictory?  For  the  very  reason  that  we  are  finite, 
our  personality  is  imperfect.  To  none  but  the  Infinite  can 
we  ascribe  perfect  personality.  But  more  than  this,  we  are 
compelled  to  do  so.  Or  is  not  a  personality  superior  to  an 
impersonal  object  ?  Is  it  not  a  matter  of  fact,  that  tlie  greater 
and  higher  a  being  is,  the  more  perfect  is  his  personality  ? 
Do  we  not  see  the  creation  struggling  towards  personality, 
and  mounting  step  by  step  through  the  preliminary  stages  of 
the  vegetable  and  animal  world,  until  in  man  it  actually 
attains  to  individual  personality,  and  becomes  a  self-conscious 
mind  ?  “  Whence  this  universal  tendency  of  all  that  lives 

towards  personality,  if  it  be  not  the  law  of  the  wmid  ;  and 
wdience  this  law,  if  the  Principle  of  the  world  is  an  impersonal 
one  ?  ”  And  if  personality  constitutes  the  pre-eminence  of 
man  over  the  inferior  creation,  can  this  pre-eminence  be 
wnnting  in  the  highest  Being  of  all  ?  can  God,  the  most  per¬ 
fect  Being  imaginable,  be  devoid  of  personality,  the  most 
perfect  form  of  being  ?  Is  God  indeed  the  absolute  and 
entirely  perfect  One,  if  He  be  wanting  in  any  one  excellence  ? 
We  do  not  assert  that  the  most  perfect  Being  as  such  neces¬ 
sarily  exists  (which  w'as,  as  we  saw,  the  false  conclusion  of  the 
ontological  argument.  But  we  maintain  that  personality  must 
belong  to  perfect  existence  as  such  (for  the  existence  of  God  is 
acknowledged  by  Pantheism),  because  otherwise  the  most  per¬ 
fect  form  of  existence  would  not  have  been  attained.  So  little, 
therefore,  is  the  idea  of  God’s  personality  contradicted  hj  His 
infinite  greedness  and  perfection,  thed,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  pre¬ 
cisely  hy  reason  of  them  that  He  must  he  personed.  In  fact,  the 
Absolute  can  only  be  imagined  as  the  absolute  Subject,  i.e. 
as  the  absolute  Personality.  If  the  Absolute  is  to  be  mere 
substance,  its  idea  remains  incomplete ;  because  then  the  sub¬ 
jective  spirit  and  the  finite  personality  of  man  appear  as  some¬ 
thing  higher. 

In  support  of  this  we  can  again  appeal  to  the  self-know* 
ledge  of  man.  AVe  have  already  seen,  in  our  arguments 
against  Atheism,  tliat,  from  the  consciousness  of  his  own 
conditionality  and  limitation,  man  derives  the  idea  of  an 


LECT.  III.]  MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD,  171 

unconditioned  absolute  Being.  If  we  now  go  a  step  further, 
and  assert  that  this  absolute  Being  must  necessarily  be  con¬ 
ceived  as  a  'personal  one,  we  are  justified  in  so  doing  by  the 
fact,  that  if  man  perceives  that  even  a  conditioned,  relative 
being  like  himself  is  by  its  self-consciousness  raised  high 
above  the  level  of  mere  nature,  he  cannot  imagine  the  abso¬ 
lute  Being,  whom  he  regards  as  the  creative  Cause  of  himself 
and  all  conditioned  existence,  to  be  otherwise  than  possessed 
of  absolute  self-consciousness  and  freedom,  i.e.  as  absolute 
Personality  (Delitzsch  ut  supra,  p.  69).  That  which  man 
recognises  in  himself  in  a  conditioned  form,  he  must  ascribe 
to  his  original  Cause  ahsolutely. 

We  here  perceive  the  fundamental  'weakness  of  Pantheism, — 
its  absolute  Being  is  not  absolute  at  all,  just  because  It  is  defi¬ 
cient  in  the  point  of  personality.  The  latter  is  not  in  the 
case  of  God,  any  more  than  of  other  beings,  a  defect,  a 
restrictive  limitation ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  a  preieminence, 
a  perfection,  and  consequently  in  the  most  perfect  Being  a 
necessity.  Only  we  must  not  exaggerate  the  infinity  of  God, 
so  as  to  make  Him  out  to  be  something  entirely  colourless, 
abstract,  and  utterly  devoid  of  attributes ;  but  we  must,  not¬ 
withstanding  all  infinity,  imagine  Him  at  the  same  time  as  a 
definite  Quantity,  determined  by  Himself  and  not  by  others, 
whose  self-posited  unity  is  His  own  act,  and  in  whom  per¬ 
sonality  is  the  necessary  form  and  determination  (but  not  the 
limitation)  of  the  infinite  being.  I  say  the  necessary  form ; 
for  how  should  that  which  has  in  itself  no  definite  centre,  and 
cannot  even  posit  itself  in  thought  and  will,  have  power  and 
stability  to  posit  a  world  as  distinct  from  itself,  and  to  become 
the  motive  power  of  the  universe  ?  Indeed,  how  can  that 
which  in  itself  lacks  all  precision  and  definiteness  ever  be 
capable  of  shaping  given  cosmical  matter  into  definite  forms  ? 

Lastly,  the  pantheist  may  object  that  a  self-consciousness 
cannot  most  assuredly  have  an  object ;  it  requires  two  distinct 
subjects,  such  as  are  in  fact  presented  to  us  in  the  Scriptures, 
in  Father  and  Son.  And  further,  it  is  clear  that  if  hoo  are 
required,  God  and  the  world  cannot  be  oTie.  Thus  the  above- 
mentioned  objection,  after  all,  recoils  against  its  authors. 

(&)  The  next  set  of  arguments  to  show  untenableness  of 
the  pantheistic  conception  of  God  are  taken  from  a  cosmo- 


1V2 


PANTHEISM. 


[LECT.  III. 


logical  point  of  view ;  that  is,  from  a  consideration  of  the  loorld. 
The  well-known  cosmological  proof  for  the  existence  of  a  God 
is  simply  enough  indicated  in  Scripture,  viz.  Heb.  iii.  4 : 
“  For  every  house  is  builded  by  some  man ;  but  He  that  built 
all  things  is  God.”  (Of.  Eom.  i.  19-21.)  It  is  sometimes 
argued  from  the  effect  to  the  cause,  thus :  All  existence  is  the 
effect  of  some  cause,  which,  in  its  turn,  is  the  effect  of  another 
cause ;  and  so  on  till  we  arrive  at  some  first  cause,  which  is 
not  the  effect  of  any  other,  but  is  itself  the  cause  of  its  own 
existence  (cf.  the  Aristotelian  expression,  “first  mover,”  'irpdnov 
KLvovv).  At  other  times  it  is  argued  from  the  accidental  to 
the  necessary,  thus :  That  there  is  no  accidental — that  is, 
what  can  be  otherwise  or  not — without  a  corresponding 
necessary  (used  in  this  form  by  the  school  of  Leibnitz  and 
Wolff).  Since  the  time  of  Kant  it  has  been  justly  held  that 
this  argument  only  proves  the  existence  of  an  unconditioned 
essence,  eternal  and  self-subsisting,  wdiich  forms  the  ground¬ 
work  of  everything  else ;  but  not  that  this  essence  must  be 
an  unique  and  'personal  Being. 

Nevertheless,  this  argument  should  not  be  unconditionally 
rejected.  That  great  man  Sir  Isaac  Newton  has  said : 
“  Although  no  actual  step  in  this  argumentation  brings  us 
directly  to  the  knowledge  of  the  First  Cause,  yet  each  one 
carries  us  constantly  nearer  to  it.”  And  how  is  this?  Because 
the  human  spirit  can  believe  of  none  but  the  Spirit,  that  it  is 
a  self-positing,  unconditioned  eternal  Being.  Of  every  other, 
that  is,  of  every  material  existence,  the  mind  asks,  and  must 
ask.  Whence  is  it  ?  and  cannot  rest  satisfied  with  the  mere 
thought  that  it  has  always  existed.  “  We  are  no  more  able 
to  believe  of  cosmical  substance  than,  for  instance,  of  the  sun, 
that  it  is  per  se  a  necessary  eternal  being ;  for  this  cosmical 
substance  possesses  no  understanding;  it  is  not  spirit”  (Gess, 
Avologct.  Beitrdge,  p.  190).  If  it  be  an  assumption  necessary 
to  our  intellectual  being,  that  only  the  Spirit  can  posit  itself 
and  possesses  eternal  necessary  being,  it  follows  that  we  can 
only  imagine  as  a  Spirit  that  unconditioned  Cause  of  all 
things,  that  absolute  One,  to  whom  we  are  led  by  the  cosmo¬ 
logical  argument.  That  which  is  self-existent  must  also  be 
self-conscious. 

But  the  necessity  of  postulating  self-consciousness  as  in- 


LECT.  III.]  MODEIIN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  173 

herent  in  the  Divine  Nature  is  still  more  evident,  if  we 
consider  the  world  not  merely  as  matter,  hut  as  the  Cosmos  ; 
that  is,  as  a  harmoniously  proportioned  and  well-arranged 
organism.  This  brings  us  to  the  teleological  argument,  based 
upon  the  purpose  or  aim  manifested  in  the  universe,  an  argu- 
'ment  which  the  results  of  modern  science  are  rendering  more 
and  more  important.  It  is  based  upon  an  idea  of  the  creation, 
as  a  judiciously  arranged  whole,  tending  to  a  certain  aim  ;  and 
from  the  regularity  and  conformity  to  purpose  exhibited  in 
the  universe,  it  argues  that  there  must  be  an  Intelligence 
which  has  ordered  it  according  to  a  set  purpose,  and  thus 
points  us  to  a  self-conscious,  personal  Spirit.  In  vain  have 
endeavours  been  made  to  dispute  the  material  premise  of  this 
argument,  viz.  that  the  world’s  course  is  arranged  after  a  set 
purpose.  It  has  been  said  that  we  know  only  a  small  portion 
of  the  universe,  and  must  not  therefore  presuppose  as  a  matter 
of  course  that  the  same  order  and  wisdom  prevail  in  all  its 
spheres ;  and  moreover,  that  the  conformity  to  purpose  shown 
in  the  earthly  creation  is  by  no  means  perfect,  but  that  on  the 
contrary  there  are  many  things  in  it  which  are  purposeless  or 
contrary  to  their  true  aim ;  for  the  world,  human  life,  and 
history,  form  an  exhibition  of  incompleteness  and  unsuitable¬ 
ness,  as  is  proved  by  the  many  evils  which  exist.  But,  in  the 
first  place,  if  only  a  portion  of  the  world  be  indubitably  shown 
to  be  full  of  wisdom,  the  ivliole  universe  must  be  so  also ; 
because  otherwise  this  portion  would  not  for  one  moment  be 
safe  from  being  destroyed  by  the  want  of  order  in  the  re¬ 
mainder.  And  does  not  the  fact  that  we  need  to  iheditate 
upon  the  world,  and  cannot  help  doing  so,  at  once  presuppose 
that  the  object  of  our  thought  must  be  a  Eeality  full  of 
wisdom  ?  “A  world  of  accident  could  not  be  an  object  of 
cogitation.  If  the  world  around  us  be  not  a  system  of  thought, 
whence  comes  the  need  we  feel  for  thinking  about  it  ?  Why 
is  not  man  satisfied  with  the  use  that  beasts  make  of  the 
world  ?”  The  very  fact  that  we  are  compelled  to  think  about 
this  world  is  a  proof  that  thoughts  are  inwrought  in  it. 

With  regard  to  the  evil  that  is  in  the  world,  and  the  want 
of  conformity  to  purpose  shown  in  certain  phenomena,  we 
must  first  ask  whether  these  incongruities  form  an  intrinsic 
element  of  creation,  or  whether  they  are  a  later  introduction. 


174 


PANTHEISM. 


[lect.  hi. 


According  to  Scripture,  they  are  everywhere  connected  with 
sin,  the  destructive  effects  of  which  extend  even  to  nature. 
This,  however,  by  no  means  does  away  with  the  conformity  to 
purpose  which  marks  the  universe  as  a  ivhole.  Indeed,  the 
manner  in  which  these  temporary  disturbances  of  the  moral 
and  physical  order  of  the  world  are  ultimately  made  service¬ 
able  to  the  divine  aims  is,  the  longer  we  consider  it,  the  clearer 
proof  of  the  greatest  wisdom  and  conformity  to  plan.  Thus 
the  fundamental  premise  of  the  teleological  argument  for  the 
existence  of  God  remains  unshaken.^ 

It  may  be  said  with  more  reason,  that  this  argument  has 
something  incomplete  about  it,  inasmuch  as  this  conformity 
to  purpose  affects  only  the  form  and  not  the  matter  of  the 
world,  and  that  therefore  we  can  derive  from  it  only  the  idea 
of  an  Architect,  not  that  of  a  Creator.  But  let  us  combine 
the  result  of  this  argument — that  there  must  be  a  world- 
or^anizins:  intelligence — with  that  of  the  cosmological  argu- 
ment,  that  there  must  be  an  absolute  Substance,  which,  on 
account  of  its  eternity,  we  can  imagine  only  as  a  Spirit,  and 
we  then  have  the  cause  in  the  one  of  the  matter,  in  the  other 
of  the  form  of  the  world.  If,  then,  the  latter  argument  shows 
us  the  self-existent,  all-creating  nature  of  God,  and  the  former 
His  thinking  intelligence  which  makes  infinite  plans  and 
wisely  carries  them  out,  is  there  so  very  much  wanting  to 
constitute  the  idea  of  a  personal  Creator  of  the  world  ?  The 
only  question  that  remains  is,  whether  it  is  not  in  any  way 
possible  to  derive  the  wisdom  prevailing  in  the  world  from 
the  agency  of  some  blindly  operating  cause,  some  unconscious 
soul  of  the  world  ? 

In  our  inquiry  after  traces  of  the  wisdom  which  so  plenti¬ 
fully  dwells  and  operates  in  creation,  modern  science  furnishes 
us  with  a  constantly  increasing  number  of  direct  proofs,  that 
everywhere  a  foreseeing  Wisdom,  which  must  as  such  he  conscious 
of  itself  and  of  its  action,  rules  the  world.  Indeed,  these  proofs 

•The  materialistic  opponents  of  the  “theory  of  adaptation  to  pnrpose  ” 
(Biichner,  and  others)  frequently  argue  on  the  erroneous  supposition,  that 
theologians  who  believe  in  the  Bible  look  upon  the  world  in  its  present  con¬ 
dition  as  absolutely  perfect  ;  and  they  seek,  by  various  examples,  to  prove  the 
contrary.  If  they  would  take  the  trouble  to  turn  to  Roni.  viii.  19  If.,  they 
might  see  that,  long  before  their  arguments,  the  imperfection  of  the  world  in 
its  p}  (iseiU  condition  Wixs  hiught  by  Scripture. 


LECT.  III.]  MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  175 


have  rendered  Pantheism  and  Materialism,  considered  as  hypo¬ 
theses  of  natural  science,  simply  absurd,  and  save  ns  the  trouble 
of  refuting  them  from  S(;ripture.*’  Listen,  for  instance,  to 
what  the  great  chemist,  Liebig,  says  in  opposition  to  these 
views :  “  There  is  no  phenomenon  in  chemistry  more  wonder¬ 
ful,  and  none,  which  so  effectually  strikes  all  human  wisdom 
dumb,  than  that  which  is  presented  by  the  processes  taking 
place  in  the  soil  of  a  field  adapted  for  vegetable  growth. 
Durinrr  the  filtration  of  rain-water  through  the  soil,  the  earth 
does  not  surrender  one  particle  of  all  the  nutritive  matter 
which  it  contains  available  for  vegetable  growth  (such  as 
potash,  silicic  acid,  ammonia,  etc.) ;  the  most  unintermittent 
rain  is  unable  to  abstract  from  it  (except  by  the  mechanical 
action  of  floods)  any  of  the  chief  requisites  for  its  fertility. 
The  particles  of  mould  not  only  firmly  retain  all  matter  nutri¬ 
tive  to  vegetable  growth,  but  also  immediately  absorb  such  as 
are  contained  in  the  rain-water  (ammonia,  potash,  etc.).  But 
only  such  substances  are  completely  absorbed  from  the  water 
as  are  indispensable  requisites  for  vegetable  growth  ;  others 
remain  either  entirely  or  for  the  most  part  in  a  state  of  solu¬ 
tion.”  ^  Thus  every  drop  of  rain  is  in  its  operation  a  miracle 
of  conformity  to  purpose.  No  less  wonderful  are  the  well- 
known  proportions  in  which  oxygen  and  nitrogen  are  combined 
in  the  air,  their  continuous  production  and  consumption,  and 
the  constant  restoration  of  the  due  proportions  amidst  per¬ 
petual  oscillations'.  And  just  as  in  these  matters  we  see  a 
previorrsly  unthought  of  “  great  scheme  for  the  harmonious 
blending  of  forces,”  so,  too,  in  modern  astronomy.  Here  it 
has  been  demonstrated  that  those  phenomena  Avhich  were 
formerly  called  “  disturbances  ”  in  the  planetary  orbits,  and 
consequently  appeared  to  point  to  some  Avant  of  order,  some 
little  error  on  the  part  of  the  intelligence  Avhich  arranged  the 
universe,  are  in  reality  reciprocally  compensating  forces,  and 
balance  one  another  according  to  fixed  laws, — thanks  to  a  dis¬ 
tribution  of  masses  in  our  solar  system,  such  as  could  only  be 
contrived  by  the  piercing  mind  of  a  heavenly  Arithmetician, 
whose  reckonings  even  a  Lagrange  Avas  scarce  able  to  follow. 

And  how  many  other  facts  are  there  in  the  Avorld,  in  re- 

•  Cf.  for  wliat  follows,  Ulrici,  Gott  und  die  Natur. 

^  Chemischc  Brieje,  18Co,  p.  387  fl'. 


•176 


PANTHEISM. 


[lect.  hi. 


spect  of  which  the  truly  profound  natural  philosopher  must 
confess  that  they  absolutely  cannot  be  derived  from  blindly 
ruling  forces  of  nature,  but  must  point  to  some  intelligence 
which  guides  everything  according  to  wise  and  good  purposes ! 
How  is  it,  for  instance,  that  drift-wood  is  cast  up  on  the  coasts 
of  Greenland — which  stand  in  such  need  of  it — and  not  upon 
those  of  England  and  France  ?  How  is  it  that  the  planets 
nearest  to  the  sun  have  no  moons,  whilst  those  that  are  farther 
removed,  and  stand  in  more  need  of  light,  have  several  ?  How 
is  it  that  iron  is  the  metal  which  is  found  more  frequently 
than  any  other  ?  How  is  it  that  the  trade-winds  carry  the 
clouds  past  one  portion  of  America,  so  that  they  may  gather 
round  the  summits  of  the  Andes,  and  thence  descend  and 
moisten  by  mists  and  storms  those  provinces  which  would 
otherwise  be  arid  ?  If  it  is  said  that  these  things  are  caused 
by  certain  natural  laws  which  are  hitherto  unknown  to  us, 
the  question  still  arises,  whether  every  law  does  not  pre¬ 
suppose  a  lawgiver  ? 

In  organic  nature  we  meet  with  still  clearer  traces  of  in¬ 
telligent  forethought.  Here  we  see  each  form  of  animal  and 
vegetable  life  with  a  special  function  allotted  to  it,  and  pro¬ 
vided  with  the  requisite  structure,  but  very  often  in  such  a 
way  that  the  organs  make  their  a^opearanee  long  before  they  are 
needed  to  exereise  their  functions.  Thus  the  leaf  attached  to 
the  stamen  of  the  lime-blossom  remains  motionless  for  months, 
until  the  pistil  with,  the  fruit,  which  has  in  the  meantime 
ripened,  becomes  disengaged  from  the  bough,  and  then  by  the 
help  of  this  its  leafy  wing  does  not  descend  perpendicularly 
to  the  earth,  but  is .  carried  in  graceful  spiral  curves  beyond 
the  spreading  roots  of  the  parent  trunk.  The  feathery  crowns 
of  the  dandelion  and  the  thistle,  the  teeth  of  the  mammalia, 
and  the  wings  of  birds,  all  illustrate  the  same  law.  And  the 
further  we  descend  amongst  the  genera  of  the  inferior  animal 
creation,  the  more  frequently  are  we  confronted  by  phenomena 
which,  to  use  the  words  of  a  Professor  of  Botany,  “  can 
scarcely  be  described  otherwise  than  as  the  predestined  pre- 
paration  for  predestined,  future  functions!’  So^),  too,  with  all 
the  higher  animals ;  the  organs  of  the  lungs,  the  eyes,  and  the 
ears  are  formed  in  the  womb  or  in  the  egg  long  before  there 
is  any  contact  with  the  outer  air,  or  any  affection  of  the 


LECT.  III.] 


PAXTHEISM. 


177 


optical  or  aural  nerves.  (Xotice,  too,  the  complete  refutation 
of  Materialism  involved  in  these  facts.)  And  how  exactly 
are  these  organs  formed  in  respect  of  the  purposes  which  they 
will  have  to  fulfil !  The  eye  of  the  fish  is  constructed  in 
precise  conformity  with  the  laws  that  govern  the  refraction 
of  light  through  water,  whilst  its  gills  are  perfectly  adapted 
to  the  nature  of  its  vital  element.  The  sole  ot  the  human 
foot  and  the  palm  of  the  hand  are  clothed,  even  in  the  womb, 
with  a  thicker  skin  than  the  remainder  of  the  body.  Indeed, 
the  wise  construction  of  the  human  hand  has  been  not  inaptly 
adduced  as  an  irrefutable  proof  of  the  existence  of  God  (by 
Sir  Charles  Bell  in  his  Bridgeioatcr  Treatise). 

And  with  what  wonderful  conformity  to  purpose  is  the  life 
of  the  body  carried  on  ?  It  can  only  subsist  by  means  of  the 
continuous  action  of  the  blood,  which  in  every  limb  absorbs 
and  carries  away  all  useless  or  noxious  matter ;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  brings  to  it  all  that  is  serviceable,  by  depositing 
phosphate  of  lime  in  the  bones,  nitrogen  in  the  muscles,  car¬ 
bonic  acid  in  the  lungs,  etc., — every  kind  of  matter  in  the  right 
place,  at  the  right  time,  and  in  the  correct  chemical  propor¬ 
tions.  Surely,  in  the  face  of  such  clear  facts,  it  is  only  the 
l)lindness  of  prejudice  which  can  deny  that  a  conformity  to 
plan  and  purpose  governs  the  various  forces.  The  birth  of 
all  animals  which  live  on  any  sort  of  food  that  is  not  always 
obtainable,  takes  place  just  at  those  periods  of  the  year  in 
which  the  food  necessary  for  their  young  is  to  be  had.  In¬ 
sects,  too,  do  not  emerge  from  the  grub  until  the  means  of 
their  subsistence  are  at  hand ;  indeed,  they  conform  to  the 
irregularity  of  the  seasons  if  the  growth  of  the  plants  requisite 
for  their  food  is  delayed  by  bad  weather. 

How  incomprehensible  is  all  this,  unless  we  assume  the 
existence  of  Him  “  to  whom  all  His  works  are  known  from 
the  beginning  of  the  world!”  (Acts  xv.  18).  Is  it  not  clear 
that  the  infinitely  rich  and  yet  united  system  of  laws  inherent 
in  the  whole  of  natural  life — from  the  harmoniously  circling 
heavenly  bodies  to  the  drops  of  dew  upon  tlie  field,  from  the 
human  body  to  the  smallest  blade  of  grass — can  only  be  the 
work  of  a  foreseeing  and  therefore  self-conscious  intelligence  ? 
If,  however,  from  the  systematic  co-operation  of  all  isolated 
natural  forces  towards  one  great  vjorld-luirmony,  the  necessary 


178  MODERN  NON-BIELICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [LECT.  III. 


deduction  be  the  existence  of  some  all-conditioning,  all-govern¬ 
ing  and  spiritual  primal  Power,  then  the  utter  unteiiableness 
of  I’antheisni  is  clearly  evident.  Logic  proves  that  it  cannot 
explain  the  origin  of  cosmical  matter ;  and  natural  science 
reduces  it  to  the  utmost  perplexity,  by  demanding  an  explana¬ 
tion  of  the  cosmic  harmony,  and  of  the  wondrously  beautiful 
disposition  of  the  component  parts  in  the  world’s  organism. 
In  this  matter  its  perplexity  is  twofold.  First,  it  cannot 
point  out  the  origin  of  the  individual  forms  of  life  in  the  world. 
The  origin  of  our  own  personality  from  the  impersonal  mun¬ 
dane  Soul  remains,  as  Ave  showed  above,  a  mystery ;  but  the 
same  remark  applies  to  the  origin  of  organic  life  generally. 
The  natural  science  of  the  present  day  shows  that  at  the 
earliest  period  nothing  but  inorganic  life  existed,  and  con¬ 
fesses  its  inability  to  conceive  how  organic  life  can  be  de¬ 
veloped  from  inorganic  matter.  The  pantheist,  hoAvever,  is, 
in  accordance  with  his  principles,  compelled  to  maintain  that 
this  did  take  place.  For  if  nature  is  the  ultimate  cause  of 
everything,  if  eveiything  is  developed  by  necessity  in  an 
eternal  circle,  then  no  individual  form  of  life  can  be  isolated 
from  all  other  entities  by  a  special  act  of  creation,  or  pro¬ 
duced  by  a  miracle ;  on  the  contrary,  everything  must  form 
part  of  one  firmly-linked  chain  of  cause  and  effect.  Therefore, 
the  organic  must  take  its  origin  spontaneously  from  the  in¬ 
organic,  and  man  must  descend  from  some  species  of  ape. 
Thus  I’antheism  stands  in  complete  contradiction  to  all  sound 
investigations  of  natural  science.^ 

O 

In  the  next  place,  Pantheism  cannot  explain  the  connection 
existing  between  the  individual  cosmical  beings,  i.c.  the  laws 
that  govern  them  and  combine  them  into  a  Cosmos.  This 
marvel  of  wisdom  and  conformity  to  purpose,  these  predestined 
preparations  for  future  activity,  this  magnificent  scheme  of 
harmonious  adaptation  of  forces  both  in  animated  and  inanimate 
nature, — all  this  has  been  produced,  according  to  Pantheism, 
by  an  unconscious  Wisdom,  by  a  Soul  of  the  world  infinitely 
intelligent,  it  is  true  (for  even  Spinoza  attributes  thought  to 

’  According  to  tlie  latest  observations  of  Pastenr,  wbicb  are  confirmed  by  the 
French  Academy  of  Science,  the  assumption  of  a  generatio  spontanea  ov  cequivoca, 
i.e.  that  organic  life  should  spontaneously  spring  from  inorganic  matter,  muat 
henceforth  be  considered  as  scientifically  di.sproved. 


LECT.  III.] 


PANTHEISM. 


179 


the  universal  Substance),  but  still  impersonal.  An  unconscious 
Wisdom  !  An  infinite  Intelligence  devoid  of  self-conscioimiess  ! 
Grasp  who  may  such  an  idea !  It  is  a  self -contradicting  con¬ 
ception,  just  as  much  as  a  wooden  iron,  or  a  quadrangular 
circle!^  For  if,  as  infinite  Intelligence,  God  knows  every¬ 
thing,  He  must  also  know  Himself,  and  must  be  a  Person, 
since  “  the  conception  of  the  Ego  is  the  root  of  all  knowing.” 

The  objection  may,  however,  be  raised,  that  the  possibility 
of  a  wisdom  devoid  of  consciousness  is  evident  from  the  work¬ 
ings  of  animal  instinet  and  the  origin  of  human  language. 
Many  animals,  such  as  the  spider,  the  bee,  the  beaver,  etc.,  do, 
indeed,  without  any  clear  consciousness,  make  structures  emi¬ 
nently  adapted  to  their  purpose,  and  the  genius  of  a  people 
produces  its  own  language,  without  any  preconceived  plan 
and  any  clear  intention,  and  yet  languages  are  replete  with 
well-defined  rules  and  laws.  This  objection  is  very  plausible ; 
nevertheless  it  proves  nothing  in  favour  of  an  absence  of  con¬ 
sciousness  on  the  part  of  the  mundane  Soul.  It  cannot  prove 
this,  unless  these  wisely  planned  workings  of  animal  instinct 
really  proceed  primarily  from  the  least  itself  But  this  is  not  the 
case.  On  the  contrary,  instinct  is  implanted  in  the  beast  as  a 
result  of  its  organization,  as  e.g.  the  faculty  of  singing  in  the 
singing  bird  ;  and  faculties  of  this  kind  are  not  produced  by 
the  animal  itself,  but  are  derived  from  some  other  source. 
In  like  manner,  the  peculiar  features  of  a  language  arise  from 


'  Hence,  also,  the  contradictions  in  which  pantheistic  naturalists  entangle 
themselves  when  endeavouring  to  explain  the  process  of  creation.  Burmeister, 
for  instance,  has  shown  with  praiseworthy  pains  that  the  creation  of  the  various 
animal  species  always  began  wdth  a  type  of  the  whole  genus,  which  united  in 
itself  the  qualities  subsequently  distributed  among  the  different  species.  Hence 
he,  too,  acknowledges  a  “united  plan,  a  definite  law  unalterably  observed 
in  the  development  of  the  animal  woidd  but  at  the  same  time  he  maintains 
that  this  law  is  only  the  result  of  the  forces  working  in  matter,  and  that  as  they 
altered,  that  which  was  produced  by  them  assumed  another  form.  But  if  tliese 
forces  not  only  work,  but  also  “  alter”  in  conformity  wdth  “  a  united  plan,”  so 
that  they  do  not  constantly  produce  similar  formations,  but  sirch  as  are  progi-es- 
sively  more  and  more  perfect ;  and  if  all  this  appears  to  be  based  upon  some  dis¬ 
tinct  universal  conception,  does  it  not  evidently  follow  that  it  is  not  a  number 
of  forces  hlindly  acting  upon  the  matter  with  which  they  fortuitously  meet,  but 
only  an  intelligent  ana  conscious  Power  operating  according  to  plan  and  concep¬ 
tion,  which,  by  means  of  these  natural  forces  and  materials,  has  called  forth  the 
succession  of  animal  species,  and  has  guided  the  whole  process  of  creation  ? 
Pantheism  is  here  convicted  from  its  own  lips ! 


180  MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [lECT.  III. 


the  bodily  or  mental  constitution  which  the  people  has  hy 
nature ;  and  this,  too,  is  a  gift  conferred  upon  it.  Hence,  in 
reality,  the  wisdom  which  manifests  itself  in  animal  instinct 
and  in  the  construction  of  languages  is  not  deriA^ed  from  the 
beast  itself,  nor  from  the  genius  of  the  nation,  “  hut  from  that 
Power  to  which  both  animals  and  men  owe  their  organization. 
It  is  therefore  impossible  to  argue,  from  the  deficiency  of  self- 
consciousness  in  animal  instinct,  that  the  ultimate  Cause  which 
organizes  every  kind  of  life  can  operate  unconsciously.”  A 
cleverly- constructed  machine  works  well  by  itself,  and  produces 
things  serviceable  for  the  purpose  intended ;  but  this  is  a 
merit  due,  not  to  the  machine,  but  to  him  who  constructed  it 
wisely,  with  a  certain  end  in  view.  It  works  only  with  bor¬ 
rowed  wisdom  and  forces  implanted  in  it  by  man.  Thus  God 
implants  in  organic  nature  certain  instincts  and  faculties, 
which  then  produce  unconsciously  things  wondrously  adapted 
for  their  purpose.  But  from  this  it  by  no  means  follows  that 
the  Creator,  Avho  conferred  these  gifts  on  animals  or  men,  did 
so  unconsciously. 

Ho,  it  is  a  proposition  clear  and  irrefutable  as  the  axioms  in 
mathematics,  that  the  primal  Eeason,  from  which  all  that  is 
rational  in  the  world  proceeds,  cannot  be  blind,  but  must  be 
self-conscious.  “  So  long,”  says  a  prominent  philosopher  of 
the  present  day,  “  as  the  position  of  natural  science  allowed  us 
to  consider  original  matter  to  be  a  continuous  substance  extend¬ 
ing  into  infinity,  it  was  possible  to  take  a  pantheistic  view  of 
tlie  spiritual  Power  governing  it,  as  though  this  were  inherent 
in  matter,  and  formed  it  continually  into  the  shapes  which 
nature  exhibits,  i.c.  as  though  it  Avere  merely  the  Soul  or 
Spirit  of  the  Avorld.  But  since  natural  science  has  demon¬ 
strated  that  matter  consists  of  an  infinity  of  separate  and  dif¬ 
ferent  atoms,  it  is  scientifically  impossible  to  cling  to  Pantheism 
as  a  theory  of  the  icorld  ivithout  betraying  an  utter  -want  of 
reflection.”  If  I  shuffle  promiscuously  a  thousand  letters  of 
the  alphabet,  is  it  likely  that  some  happy  accident  Avill  group 
them  into  a  glorious  poem,  teeming  in  every  line  with  intel¬ 
lect  and  beauty  ?  You  cannot  believe  this.  Neither  can 
you,  then,  believe  that  a  Cosmos,  such  as  presents  itself  to  our 
eye,  Avith  more  Avisdom  and  beauty  the  longer  Ave  consider  it, 
is  the  product  of  matter,  of  forces  and  atoms  unconsciously 


LECT.  III.] 


PANTHEISM. 


181 


meeting  and  combining  with  one  another !  At  the  present 
day  the  only  choice  left  to  us  is  between  this  extreme 
^Materialism,  which  declares  the  origin  of  the  world  to  be  an 
accidentally  fortunate  combination  of  atoms,  and  the  belief  in 
the  creative  action  of  a  spiritual,  self-conscious,  original  Being, 
who  governs  according  to  purposes  and  ideas,  that  is,  in  the 
personal  God.  This,  my  honoured  hearers,  is  the  final  dilemma 
put  to  you  also :  you  must  believe  either  in  an  accident  which 
explains  nothing  at  all,  and  puts  a  stop  to  all  scientific  inves¬ 
tigations,  or  in  a  personal  Creator  ! 

The  very  same  alternative  is  laid  before  you  in  respect  to 
the  whole  history  of  the  ivorld.  Its  wonderful  course  is  as 
much  a  proof  for  the  existence  of  a  wise  and  holy  God  who 
guides  everything  according  to  conscious  aims  and  ends,  as  is 
the  creation,  for  the  existence  of  a  wise  and  omnipotent  God. 
“  The  wisely  ordered  march  of  history,”  says  a  modern  apolo¬ 
gist,  “  through  the  midst  of  all  the  turmoil  brought  about  by 
the  arbitrary  conduct  of  so  many  millions  of  free  men,  can 
only  be  explained  as  resulting  from  the  all-ruling  providence 
of  a  personal  God.  It  would  be  impossible,  in  the  face  of 
human  freewill,  for  the  unconscious  wisdom  of  nature  to 
retain  the  mastery  over  the  course  of  events.”  Every  individual 
personal  being  would  possess  in  his  freedom  a  power  greater  than 
all  that  of  the  impersonal  mundane  Soul,  and  could,  by  a  single 
action,  confound  all  the  operations  of  the  latter.  Nothing  hut 
a  person  can  rule  over  and  guide  persons.  The  rule  of  an  im¬ 
personal  power  over  personal  beings  is  just  as  impossible  for  the 
one  as  it  is  icnworthy  for  the  other.  We  need  not  pursue  this 
further,  for  it  will  suffice  to  refer  each  one  to  his  own  history. 
If  God  exists,  then  man,  the  being  formed  in  His  image,  may 
demand  that  He  should,  make  Himself  personally  felt.  And 
has  He  not  already  done  so  in.  our  individual  experience? 
With  one  who  denies  this,  we  cannot  of  course  dispute  further  ; 
but  such  an  one  will  find  his  whole  life  one  great  unsolved 
enigma ! 

(c)  This  brings  us  to  the  historical  arguments  against  Pan¬ 
theism.  These  we  will  touch  very  shortly,  and  only  from  one 
point  of  view,  viz.  that  of  the  history  of  religions.  It  is  a 
matter  of  fact  that,  even  in  polytheistic  religions,  the  pre¬ 
sentiment  of  the  One  personal  God  has  not  entirely  faded 


182 


MODERN  NON-BIELICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [LECT.  III. 


away.  Only  to  take  one  instance,  we  should  scarcely  find 
even  a  Negro  in  Africa  who  denies  the  one  God,  the  Creator 
of  heaven  and  earth.  The  history  of  religions  is  making  it 
more  and  more  evident  at  the  present  day,  that  in  the  most 
ancient  traditions  of  all  nations  there  are  to  be  found  scattered 
traces  and  features,  distorted  but  still  recognisable,  of  a  primi¬ 
tive  revelation  of  the  One  personal  God.  But  more  than  this, 
traces  are  not  wanting  that  the  growing  darkness  of  super¬ 
stition  is  sometimes  painfully  felt  by  the  heathen  as  a  s/a/e  of 
degradation  from  the  more  elevated  stage  of  that  primitive 
revelation.^  W e  do  not  consider  this  as  a  direct  argument 
against  Pantheism,  but  we  take  note  of  the  fact  that  the  testi- 
mony  of  Scripture  respecting  the  original  revelation  of  the 
One  personal  God  is  increasingly  confirmed  by  the  history  of 
religion.  But  if  Polytheism  is  shown  to  be  an  obscuration  of 
the  original  revelation  of  God,  then  Pantheism,  its  reverse, 
must  be  the  same.  But  the  history  of  religions  supplies  us 
with  a  direct  argument  against  Pantheism,  in  the  fact  that  all 
religions  show  an  involuntary  imyidse  tmvards  forming  a  per¬ 
sonal  idea  of  their  gods.  Nations  cannot  imagine  their  gods 
otherwise  than  as  persons ;  and  this  is  what  Cicero  means 
when  he  says  :  “  All  of  us  of  every  nation,  following  a  necessity 
implanted  in  our  nature,  cannot  ascribe  to  the  gods  any  other 
shape  than  that  of  man.”  This  religious  feature  is  universal 
in  the  most  ancient  as  well  as  in  the  most  modern  forms  of 
heathenism.  Even  in  the  religions  of  nature  the  deified  natural 
forces  are  invariably  personified.  The  hymns  and  prayers 
addressed  to  them  (cf.  those  of  the  Indian  Vedas')  presuppose 
their  personality.  Even  the  sacrifice  intended  to  propitiate 
the  fetish  gives  to  it  “  a  background  of  personality.”  So,  too, 
the  supreme  God  of  the  Chinese,  who  was  subsequently  wor¬ 
shipped  by  their  jdiilosophers  as  merely  the  impersonal  soul  of 
the  world,  was,  according  to  modern  investigations,  not  merely 

1  Cf.  for  instance  (in  Burckhardt’s  MUsionshihliotTielc,  II.  B.,  South  Africa, 
p.  121,  the  confession  of  the  Hottentots  at  the  beginning  of  the  18th  century, 
“that  it  had  been  related  to  them  by  their  fathers  how  their  ancestors  liad 
sinned  so  dreadfully  against  the  great  God  that  He  had  liardened  the  hearts  of 
them  and  of  their  posterity,  so  that  they  could  no  longer  know  nor  honeur  nor 
serve  Him  rightly.”  Also  Ergdnzruujsheft,  ii.  IStlS,  p.  10.  For  what  follows, 
cf.  also  Plath,  Die  llelig.  tier  alien  Chinesen,  1863,  and  Delitzsch  ut  supra, 
p.  53  ff. 


I.ECT.  III.] 


PANTHEISM. 


183 


originally  imagined  as  a  person,  but  is  even  at  the  present  day 
practically  personified  as  the  Higher  Emperor,  Shang-Ti.  All 
mythologies  are  based  on  the  idea  of  personal  historical  inter¬ 
course  between  gods  and  men.  Is  not  the  conclusion  a  fair 
one,  “  that  man  is  inivarclly  compelled  to  think  of  the  Godhead 
as  a  personal  Being,  and  that  he  cannot,  at  any  stage  of  religious 
progress,  get  rid  of  this  idea?”  The  objection  that  “it  is  a 
form  of  thought  peculiar  to  the  human  mind  to  represent  as 
persons  all  the  unknown,  secret  causes  of  natural  phenomena,” 
in  no  w'ay  lessens  the  importance  of  this  unique  fact.  For  we 
clearly  see  that,  following  a  necessary  internal  law  which  has 
been  universally  confirmed  by  history,  man  cannot  look  upon 
any  of  the  beings  w'hich  he  ranks  cibore  himself,  and  wdth 
whom  he  stands  in  some  religious  connection,  except  as 
sonal  beings ;  because  otherwise  they  would  rank  nnder  him, 
and  could  not  enter  into  reciprocal  intercourse  with  him. 

From  these  facts  we  draw  the  conclusion  that,  according 
to  the  unanimous  testimony  of  religious  history.  Pantheism  is 
nothing  but  an  artificial  system  of  philosophical  abstractions, 
wliich  keeps  back,  subtilizes,  and  generalizes  the  original  and 
ever-recurring  instinct  that  leads  man  to  yearn  after  a  per¬ 
sonal  God,  and  personal  intercourse  with  Him.  We  now 
proceed  to  show  that  this  internal  law  cannot  be  slighted 
without  the  infliction  of  a  heavy  injury  on  our  moral  and 
religious  consciousness. 

id)  This  we  do  by  means  of  the  moved  and  religious  argu¬ 
ments  against  the  pantheistic  idea  of  God.  In  the  first 
place,  we  ask  the  pantheist.  Whence  proceeds  the  conscienee, 
the  moral  law  implanted  in  us  ?  Whence  this  “  categorical 
imperative  ”  which  makes  itself  directly  felt  and  recognised  in 
our  soul  ?  Does  it  not  point  to  some  absolute  law-giving 
Will  operating  in  us  ?  Surely  the  moved  law  is  something 
entirely  different  from  the  nedured  law.  The  latter  is  un¬ 
consciously  carried  out  by  nature  ;  that  is,  it  fulfils  itself.  But 
the  law  which  lives  in  the  conscience  is  not  fulfilled  until 
man  has  become  conscious  of  it.  And  whilst  the  former  law 
must  be  fulfilled,  the  latter,  though  requiring  its  fulfilment  on 
the  part  of  man,  yet  allows  him  free  self-decision.  The  moral 
law  cannot,  therefore,  be  derived  from  nature ;  and  if  man 
discovers  this  law  inherent  in  him,  he  cannot  be  a  mere  pro- 


184  MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [lECT.  III. 


clact  of  natural  life.  (This  argument  likewise  holds  good  against 
INIaterialism.)  Indeed  this  law  may  even  contradict  the  natural 
law ;  for  in  some  cases  we  feel  ourselves  bound  to  obey  the 
moral  law  in  the  teeth  of  all  our  natural  inclinations.  If  a  man 
is  hungry,  and  sees  bread  before  him,  the  impulses  of  nature  bid 
him  appropriate  it ;  but  the  moral  law  says,  “  Thou  shalt  not 
steal !  ”  And  if  he  disobeys  the  latter,  he  cannot  avoid  the 
painful  feeling  that  he  has  thereby  degraded  himself.  How 
is  this  ?  Why  is  this  moral  law  permitted  so  frequently  to 
contradict  the  laws  of  nature  ?  And,  lastly,  whence  proceeds 
our  religious  consciousness,  wliich,  as  w^e  have  already  seen 
[under  the  head  (r)],  demands  fellowship  with  the  personal 
God,  and  which,  if  the  pantheistic  idea  of  God  were  correct, 
would  be  mere  self-contradiction,  a  lie,  a  mockery,  and  an 
eternally  unappeased  longing  ?  No  pantheist  has  as  yet  been 
able  to  give  a  satisfactory  answer  to  these  questions. 

We  are  probably  met  with  the  reply,  that  “  all  this  is 
connected  w'ith  the  moved  order  of  the  ivorld  f  which  is 
supposed  to  be  the  origin,  support,  and  end  of  moral  conscious¬ 
ness  in  man.  But  this  is  a  mere  phrase,  and  does  not  explain 
anything.  Whence  does  the  moral  order  of  the  w^orld  proceed  ? 
Does  it  not,  as  much  or  still  more  than  the  conformity  to 
law  in  external  nature,  presuppose  a  thinking,  self-conscious 
Lawgiver,  a  free  and  holy  Will,  and  a  personal  Creator  and 
Euler  of  the  universe  ?  Is  our  intellect  again  to  acquiesce 
in  the  idea,  that  this  moral  order  has  arisen  spontaneously,  or 
has  always  existed  ?  Supposing  even  it  existed  without  any 
ordainer  or  lawgiver,  Avould  it  by  itself  be  able  to  implant  the 
moral  law  in  us,  and  to  maintain  its  autlioritg  ?  AVe  have 
already  seen  that  the  mere  abstract  idea  of  Goodness  is  no 
effective  motive  for  doing  good,  and  that  it  cannot  operate 
wuth  vital  power  unless  it  is  seen  realized  in  some  pcrsonalitjj, 
and  thus  takes  hold  of  the  heart.  We  ask  :  Is  it  possible 
that  a  mere  law  or  universal  order,  an  utter  abstraction  which 
it  is  difficult  even  to  express,  should  draw  forth  a  love  from 
man  which  would  prove  an  adequate  motive  for  moral  conduct, 
even  in  cases  wdiere  such  would  require  painful  seli-denial  ? 
Indeed,  can  such  a  law^  even  exact  the  necessary  respect  from 
man’s  freewill  ?  Practical  experience  answers  this  inquiry 
with  a  dear  and  unanimous — No.  It  teaches  us  that  these 


LECT.  III.] 


PANTHEISM, 


185 


effects  can  only  follow  when  the  law  proceeds  from,  and  is 
represented  by,  concrete  personal  beings.  If,  therefore,  the 
moral  ideas  which  man  detects  in  his  conscience  are  not  to 
remain  powerless  and  without  effect,  they  must  be  derived 
from  a  personal  Will ;  a  living  God  must  be  their  source  and 
exponent,  not  a  mere  law.  Where  in  all  the  world  will  a 
mere  law  obtain  the  respect  due  to  it,  unless  it  is  supported 
by  persons  endowed  with  authority  ?  And,  in  like  manner, 
nobody  would  care  for  the  moral  law  if  it  were  supported  by 
nothiog  but  the  “  order  of  the  universe,”  and  not  by  the  per¬ 
sonality  of  a  holy  God.  The  same  rule,  as  above,  holds  good 
here  also,  that  only  a  personal  will  can  rule  persons ;  a  free¬ 
will  does  not  submit  to  the  mere  framework  of  a  spon¬ 
taneously  generated  mundane  order. 

see  that  the  'pantheistic  idea  of  God  cannot  afford  any 
support  to  our  moral  life,  inasmuch  as  it  is  unahlc  cither  to 
explain  the  moral  law  or  enforce  it.  It  may,  however,  be 
shown  still  more  simply  that  it  must  lead  even  to  the  destruc¬ 
tion  of  all  morality  ;  and  this  is  the  last  and  heaviest  charge 
which  we  bring  forward  against  it. 

The  reason  is  this,  that  Pantheism  (just  as  Materialism)  is 
at  last  compelled,  if  consistent  with  its  own  principles,  to  deny 
the  freedom  of  man,  his  responsibility,  'and  even  the  distinction 
between  good  and  evil,  by  which  means  all  morality  is  done 
away  with.  According  to  the  pantheistic  view,  the  world  is 
moving  in  a  circle  formed  by  an  inexorably  firm  chain  of 
cause  and  effects,  one  thing  resulting  from  anotlier  wdth  iron 
necessity.  Man  is  no  exception  to  this  rule.  He  stands, 
according  to  Spinoza,  as  a  link  in  the  endless  series  of  deter¬ 
mining  causes.  In  his  spirit  there  is  no  such  thing  as  free¬ 
will  ;  for  each  act  of  his  will  is  predetermined  by  some 
other  cause,  and  this  again  by  another,  and  so  on  ad  infinihtm. 
Whatever  the  will  does,  it  cannot  help  doing.  “  ]\Ien  believe 
that  they  are  free  agents,  simply  because  they  are  conscious 
of  their  actions  only,  and  not  of  the  causes  by  which  these 
actions  are  determined.”  The  ideas  of  the  distinction  between 
good  and  evil  are  based  upon  an  error.  Nothing  is  in  itself 
either  good  or  evil ;  these  are  purely  relative  and  subjective 
ideas,  “mere  prejudices,  which  arise  from  arbitrary  concep¬ 
tions  formed  by  men  of  the  standards  at  which  things  and 


186  MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [lECT.  III. 


actions  are  to  aim,  whilst  in  nature  nothing  really  takes  place 
M’hich  can  he  imputed  to  her  as  a  fault.”  As  soon  as  we 
turn  our  glance  away  from  details  and  direct  it  towards  the 
whole,  we  recognise  that  everything,  even  so-called  evil, 
works  together  for  the  perfection  and  beauty  of  the  whole. 
Truly,  these  utterances  of  Spinoza  in  his  Practical  Philuso'phy 
leave  nothing  to  he  desired  as  regards  jjerspicuity.  They 
completely  destroy  all  morality.  Whatever  I  do,  I  do  it  of 
necessity,  and  so  it  is  right,  seemly,  and  profitable  for  the 
whole !  '  ' 

Other  pantheists,  it  is  true,  may  not  have  admitted  these 
awfal  conclusions  quite  so  bluntly  as  Spinoza;  hut  if  they 
wish  to  be  consistent  with  their  principles,  they  are  all 
inexorably  compelled  to  do  so,  and  hence  in  the  case  of  each 
one  of  them  they  are  more  or  less  openly  manifest.  Theolo¬ 
gians  of  the  pantheistic  school  cannot  do  otherwise  than 
represent  the  fall  of  man  as  a  necessity,  and  with  human  free¬ 
dom  they  must  deny  human  guilt.  Statesmen  and  national 
jurists  of  pantheistic  opinions,  if  they  remain  faithful  to  their 
principles,  must  constantly  allow  the  freedom  of  the  individual 
to  be  merged  in  the  mechanism  of  the  commonwealth  as  a 
whole.  The  rights  of  the  individual  person  can  never  be  duly 
recognised  by  those  who  hold  such  opinions.  Take  c.g.  Hegel’s 
teachings  as  to  law  and  government,  and  see  how  he  utterly 
sacrifices  the  will  of  the  individual  to  that  of  the  common¬ 
wealth.  The  outcome  of  such  doctrines  is  best  described  in 
Hegel’s  own  words,  when  he  says  that  “  the  world’s  history 
is  the  Golgotha  of  the  Absolute  Spirit ;  the  fearfull}^  tragic 
slaughter-house  in  which  all  individual  life  and  happiness  is 
sacrificed,  in  order  that  the  universal  ideal  of  humanity  may 
progress.”  Under  the  dominion  of  a  blindly  ruling  Soul  of 
the  universe,  which  is  but  another  name  for  necessity  itself, 
there  is  no  room  left  for  any  being  in  the  world  to  exercise 
freedom.  Everything  is  swallowed  up  in  the  universal  sub¬ 
stance,  and  is  ruled  by  the  law  of  its  development.  The 
course  of  the  world  necessarily  involves  the  life  and  death  of 
all  that  we  see.  Everything  has  existed  long  since,  and  will 
again  exist ;  everything  remains  as  it  always  was,  unaltered 
amidst  all  changes.  Aimless  and  colourless,  the  current  of 
the  world’s  life  eternally  sweeps  onward,  and  only  to  our 


LECT.  III.] 


PANTHEISM. 


187 


sliort-sighted  vfsion  does  it  appear  bright  with  different  hues. 
And  we,  ourselves,  mere  specks  that  of  necessity  emerge  only 
again  to  subside  below  this  current,  cannot  in  truth,  either 
by  our  best  or  our  w^orst  actions,  tinge  the  world’s  develop¬ 
ment  by  any  difference  or  peculiarity  of  character,  nor  by  any 
deed  of  abiding  merit  or  demerit.  What  a  comfortless  viciu  of 
the  ivorlcl  is  this ;  how  wnworthy  of  man,  hoio  yarahyzing,  nay, 
destructive  to  all  his  moral  'powers  !  Not  only  does  it  deprive 
us  of  any  personal  immortality,  since  the  spirit  after  death  is 
to  be  absorbed  into  the  universal  soul  of  the  world,  but,  even 
in  this  life,  when  it  deprives  man  of  his  freedom,  it  robs  him 
of  all  joyfulness  in  action,  of  his  responsibility,  and  hence  of 
all  moral  value  I  This  is  the  last  and  the  heaviest  accusation 
that  we  must  bring  against  Pantheism,  just  as  above  against 
Materialism,  that  it  destroys  the  whole  ethical  and  spiritual 
dignity  of  man,  and  does  away  with  all  morality  and  all  reli¬ 
gion.  Not  only  is  it  unable  to  satisfy  the  inmost  need  of  our 
hearts,  which  long  after  personal  intercourse  with  God,  but  it 
also  robs  our  moral  action  of  its  last  support.  Pantheism, 
therefore,  harmonizes  neither  with  the  world  nor  with  ourselves  ; 
neither  with  the  cosmical  order  nor  with  our  reason ;  neither 
with  the  history  of  the  world  and  religion  nor  with  our  con¬ 
science  and  the  religious  need  implanted  in  our  hearts.  It  is 
an  evident  contradiction  of  all  these  things. 

Here,  too,  we  see  the  great  truth,  that  the  personality  of  God 
and  the  moral  personality  of  man  must  stand  or  fall  together. 
If  personality  is  not  essential  to  the  nature  of  God,  it  cannot 
be  acknowledged  in  its  full  dignity  in  man ;  it  is  not  a  com¬ 
plete  truth,  for  it  is  everywhere  only  transient  in  its  character. 
Lessing  says  most  justly,  “If  I  am,  God  is. also;  He  may  be 
separated  from  me,  but  not  I  from  Him.”  But  for  this  very 
reason  the  converse  holds  good  also.  If  God  is  not,  then  I 
am  not ;  if  He  is  no  person,  I  can  no  longer  maintain  my  per¬ 
sonality.  The  man  who  denies  the  personality  of  God  under¬ 
mines  the  foundation  of  his  own.  Pantheism,  in  doing  this, 
swallows  up  God  in  man  and  man  in  God.  Well  and  truly 
may  a  modern  philosopher  say,  “  It  is  clearly  evident  that 
pantheistic  and  atheistical  philosophy  are  alike  based  upon 
priuciples  which  are  irrational  and  unphilosophical.”  A  pious 
man,  three  thousand  years  ago,  w'ell  knew  this,  though  he 


188  MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [LECT.  III. 


expressed  it  somewhat  more  simply.  “  The  fool  hath  said  in 
his  heart,  There  is  no  God”  (Ps.  xiv.  1). 

Let  me  compress  the  result  of  all  that  I  have  said  into  a 
few  words  of  advice.  If  you  meet  one  who  denies  the  per¬ 
sonality  of  God,  ask  him  the  following  questions:  (1.)  Whence 
does  the  cosmical  substance  proceed  which  you  suppose  to  he 
shaped  by  the  Soul  of  the  universe  ?  Plow  can  God  produce 
this  substance  if  He  Himself  is  only  produced  and  realized  by 
it  ?  Is  not,  therefore,  its  existence  an  unproved  assumption  ? 
Plow  is  it  possible  that  personality  should  proceed  from  the 
impersonal,  and  that  God  should  create  something  which  He 
Himself  is  devoid  of  ?  In  fact,  can  the  most  perfect  Being 
be  deficient  in  anything  that  v/e  His  creatures  possess  ?  (2.) 

How  is  it  conceivable  that  the  Soul  of  the  universe,  which 
orders  and  guides  everything  with  astonishing  wisdom  and 
according  to  evidently  preconceived  purposes,  should  form 
conceptions  of  everything  else,  but  not  of  Itself?  (3.)  Why 
do  all  nations,  both  in  ancient  and  modern  times,  always 
imagine  their  God  or  gods  to  be  personal  ?  (4.)  If  everything 

be  a  product  of  nature  and  the  laws  of  nature,  whence  come 
our  conscience,  the  moral  law,  and  religious  consciousness  ? 
And  where  is  there  any  room  left  for  my  freedom  of  wdll  and 
responsibility — for  the  dignity  of  my  moral  personality — if  all 
things  follow  one  another  in  an  endless  circle  under  the  pres¬ 
sure  of  an  internal  necessity,  and  are  connected  in  one  firmly- 
linked  chain  of  cause  and  effect  ?  Until  a  pantheist  can  give 
you  satisfactory  answers  to  these  questions — and  you  need  not 
fear  that  this  will  be  very  readily  done — you  are  perfectly 
justified  in  calling  his  stand-point  scientifically  untenable. 

Unquestionably,  however,  there  is  something  true  even  in 
Pantheism.  There  is  something  grand  in  the  idea  of  the  unity 
oj  all  being,  and  of  the  connection  of  our  life  with  the  whole 
life  of  the  universe.  And  this  fundamental  view  is  by  no 
means  entirely  unjustifiable.  The  affinity  between  spirit  and 
nature  is  a  deeply  seated  one,  and  the  laws  of  the  two  realms 
correspond  to  each  other.  They  have  one  origin,  and  tend 
towaixls  one  goal  of  consummation.  In  man,  too,  the  dualism 
between  nature  and  spirit  is  to  be  done  aw'ay  wdth  when  he 
arrives  at  the  condition  of  perfection.  Hence  a  oneness  of 
feature  runs  through  the  whole  development  of  the  physical 


LECT.  III.] 


PANTHEISM. 


189 


and  moral  world,  and  the  spirit  in  a  thousand  ways  recognises 
itself  and  its  laws  in  the  objective  reason  which  it  meets  with 
in  nature.  But  the  wrong  lies  in  stopping  short  at  this  one 
universal  life,  just  as  if  it  were  the  origin  of  all  things,  that  is, 
God  Himself,  instead  of  raising  our  minds  to  the  recognition 
of  that  absolute  Eeason  which  must  at  the  same  time  be 
absolute  Will  and  Self-consciousness,  i.e.  to  the  One  to  whom 
this  unity  of  being  and  becoming  in  the  world  directly  points 
us  as  the  origin  and  the  goal  of  everything. 

Further,  it  is  the  special  effort  of  Pantheism  to  refer  every¬ 
thing  which  exists  and  occurs  to  the  direct  agency  of  God,  and 
to  show  its  dependence  on  Plim.  It  cannot  imagine  anything 
which  is  not  an  efflux  of  divine  power,  and  therefore  finds 
God  in  everything.  And  this,  too,  contains  a  great  truth,  viz., 
that  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  imagine  the  life  of  the  world, 
its  origin  and  continuance,  both  as  a  whole  and  in  its  smallest 
details,  as  severed  from  God,  seeing  that  He  must  needs  be 
omnipresent  and  everywhere  active.  This  much  may  be  learned 
from  Pantheism  by  deists,  rationalists,  and  all  those  who  at  the 
present  day  would  attribute  to  the  world  a  life  and  self-develop¬ 
ment  independent  of  God’s  direct  influence.  But  the  will, 
the  activity  of  God,  is  one  thing,  and  His  very  essence  is  another. 
Although  the  world,  down  to  its  very  smallest  particle,  may  be 
entirely  dependent  on  the  former,  it  does  not  follow  that  the 
latter  should  be  merged  in  and  coextensive  with  the  world. 
On  the  contrary,  true  and  rational  as  is  the  first  proposition,  it 
is  just  as  irrational  to  make  out  that  God,  the  first  Cause  of 
the  world,  is  Himself  dependent  on  it,  and  only  exists  in  the 
totality  of  the  world’s  being;  in  other  words,  to  deny  His 
supramundane  existence,  and  therefore  His  personality,  just  as 
if  the  Being  who  is  the  Cause  of  all  things  must  not  for  this 
very  reason  be  something  different  from  the  things  caused ! 

Another  truth  expressed  by  Pantheism  is  this,  that  even 
evil  is  not  to  be  thought  of  as  entirely  without  the  pale  of 
God’s  government.  There  can  be  no  power  whatever  wdiich 
is  not  subject  to  Him  or  entirely  independent  of  His  control 
and  guidance.  He  foresees  evil  and  allows  it;  indeed,  when 
it  is  once  in  existence.  He  makes  use  of  it  for  His  own  pur¬ 
poses  in  the  government  of  the  world.  But  it  is  an  error  on 
this  account  to  attribute  the  authorship  of  evil  to  the  will  of 


190  MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [LECT.  III. 

God,  as  if  the  absolutely  existent  and  eternal  Being  must  not 
at  the  same  time  be  the  absolutely  good  and  holy  One.  It  is 
also  wrong,  by.  thus  referring  the  origin  of  evil  to  the  Divine 
Will,  to  do  away  with  the  freedom  of  man  and  to  efface  the 
distinction  between  good  and  evil,  just  as  if  the  indelible  self¬ 
certainty  of  man  in  respect  to  his  moral  freedom  and  respon¬ 
sibility,  as  well  as  his  feeling  of  guilt,  could  be  a  lie. 

Finally,  there  is  something  true  in  the  pantheistic  view,  that 
the  conception  of  personality  is  too  limited  and  finite  to  be 
applied  to  God ;  for  we  cannot  conceive  of  God  only  as  a  single 
Person.  The  fulness  of  His  Being  overflows  the  limits  of  this 
conception.  But  it  is  wrong,,  on  this  account,  entirely  to  give 
up  the  idea  of  personality.  There  is  a  conception  of  God 
which  leaves  room  for  the  infinite  fulness  of  life  in  Him,  and 
3’'et  maintains  the  infinite  prerogative  of  personality.  This, 
as  we  shall  see,  is  accomplished  by  the  Christian  doctrine  of 
the  triune  personality  of  God.  The  true  conception  of  God 
must  as  decidedly  acknowledge  and  embrace  these  elements  of 
truth  as  exclude  the  false  inferences  drawn  from  them.  And 
such  we  shall  show  to  be  the  case  with  the  teaching  of  the 
Christian  faith. 

There  now  remains  for  our  consideration  one  more  concep¬ 
tion  of  God  which  acknowledges  His  personality,  and  yet, 
from  a  scriptural  point  of  view,  must  be  rejected. 


IV. - DEISM  AND  RATIONALISM. 

This  is  in  many  respects  the  antithesis  of  Pantheism. 
According  to  Pantheism,  God  exists  only  in  the  Avorld  as  its 
soul ;  according  to  Deism,  He  exists  only  above  the  world  as  a 
personal  Spirit :  by  Pantheism,  God  and  the  world  are  re¬ 
garded  as  absolutely  inseparable ;  by  Deism,  as  absolutely 
severed,  and  as  not  merely  different,  but  divided  one  from  the 
other.  God  is  for  the  deist  a  'personal  Being,  who,  after 
creating  the  world  by  His  will,  now  acts  towards  it  like  an 
artificer  with  a  finished  machine,  which  mechanically  pursues 
its  natural  course  according  to  the  laws  laid  down  for  it,  and 
no  longer  requires  the  immediate  assistance  or  interference  of 
its  maker.  The  master  shipbuilder  has  completed  and  launched 


LECT.  III.] 


DEISJI  AND  RATIONALISM. 


191 


his  ship,  and  now  leaves  her  to  herself  and  her  own  crew. 
The  clockmaker  has  completed  and  wound  up  his  clock,  which 
now  goes  of  itself  without  any  more  need  of  him. 

The  being,  personality,  and  supramundane  nature  of  the 
Deity  (hence  the  vague  and  awkward  term  “  Deism”),  and  the 
creation  of  the  world  by  Him,  are  thus  acknowledged ;  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  any  continuous  active  'presence  of  God  in  the 
loorld,  and  any  living  interposition  in  its  affairs,  are  denied. 
The  world  has  outgrown  its  leading-strings,  and,  emancipated 
from  divine  control,  is  now  left  to  itself.  There  is  no  special 
providence :  miracles  are  an  impossibility.  Everything  takes 
place  in  harmony  with  natural  laws  which  are  implanted  in  the 
universe,  and  suffer  no  alteration  whatsoever.  This  is  the  chief 
characteristic  of  the  deistical  theory.  For  the  pantheist,  God 
is  too  near  to  seem  to  be  above  him  ;  for  the  deist,  too  far  off  to 
be  recognised  as  exercising  any  direct  rule  over  the  world  which 
He  has  made.  Eelegating  God,  as  it  were,  to  the  outermost 
Confines  of  being,  he  seeks  to  keep  Him  as  far  off  as  possible,  in 
order  to  follow  the  light  of  natural  reason,  unmolested  by  the 
cross-lights  of  a  higher  revelation.  The  first  and  immediate 
consequence  of  this  is,  that  every  special  manifestation  of  God, 
no  matter  what,  must  be  denied,  all  supernatural  elements  in 
the  Christian  belief,  even  those  involved  in  the  Person  and 
Work  of  Christ,  must  be  excluded,  and,  any  thing  in  Scripture 
bearing  on  these  points  must  be  explained  away  by  a  reference 
to  natural  causes. 

In  all  essentials,  then.  Deism  coincides  entirely  with  that 
which  was  formerly  denominated  Ncduralism  f  for  it  pro¬ 
nounces  the  laws  of  nature  to  be  adequate  to  the  continuous 
existence  of  the  world,  and  natural  religion  to  be  the  only 
essential  form  of  belief,  even  in  connection  with  Christianitv. 
It  likewise  agrees  in  principle  with  what  is  called  Eationcdism, 
the  essence  of  which  consists  in  the  position  that  Eeason  is 
not  merely  the  formal,  but  also  the  material,  principle  of 

*  At  the  present  day,  in  Germany,  “Naturalism”  and  “Materialism”  arc 
used  almost  as  synonymous  terms  for  the  theory  Avhich  derives  fi’om  the 
operation  of  the  laws  of  nature  only,  not  merely  the  continuance,  hut  the  very 
existence  and  even  the  origin  of  the  world  ;  whilst  in  England,  for  instance, 
“  Naturalism  ”  still  retains  its  original  meaning,  and  is  defined  as  “the  denial 
of  any  divine  rule  and  providence  extending  to  individuals  ”  (cf.,  for  instance, 
Pearson  on  Infidelity), 


192  MODEKN  NON-BIBLICAL  CO^’CEPTIOXS  OF  GOD.  [leCT.  IIL 


religion,  and  supreme  arbiter  over  the  whole  substance  of  the 
Christian  faith  (cf.  Lect.  II.  sec.  1  and  3). 

This  theory  is,  however,  by  no  means  new.  We  meet  with 
something  like  it  even  in  Greek  philosophy,  both  in  the 
mechanical  interpretations  of  nature  given  by  the  atomists 
and  Anaxagoras’  notion  of  a  world-forming  intelligence  abso- 
lately  separated  from  all  matter,  as  w'ell  as  in  the  teaching  of 
Epicurus,  that  the  gods  can  take  no  interest  in  human  affairs. 
But  it  was  first  reduced  to  a  real  system  in  the  seventeenth 
and  eighteenth  centuries  by  the  English  (and  Dutch)  “  free¬ 
thinkers,”  “  minute  philosophers,”  and  “  deists,”  whose  common 
principle  might  be  described  as  the  elevation  of  natural 
religion,  on  the  basis  of  free  thought  and  inquiry,  to  the  posi¬ 
tion  of  supreme  arbiter  of  all  religion  that  claimed  to  be 
positive,  as  a  denial  of  any  special  divine  providence,  of 
miracles,  and  generally  of  every  direct  interposition  by  God  in 
the  course  of  the  world.  Thus,  for  instance,  Chubb  taught 
that  God  held  Himself  aloof  from  human  concerns ;  and  that 
whatever  happens  to  man  is  only  the  dependent  result  of 
second  causes.  In  like  manner,  Bolingbroke  maintained  that 
God  regards  the  universe  as  a  whole,  and  not  its  individual 
parts ;  and  that  there  is  no  divine  intervention  as  to  details 
either  in  nature  or  morals.  In  the  Germany  of  the  last 
generation,  these  rationalistic  tendencies  were  prevalent  among 
theologians  and  educated  persons  generally ;  but  in  such 
various  shades  and  modifications  as  to  the  views  taken  of 
Divine  Providence,  and  the  chief  of  all  miracles,  the  Person  of 
our  Lord,  that  we  must  be  on  our  guard  against  comprehend¬ 
ing  them  all  in  one  category.  While  some  of  those  specula¬ 
tions  were  not  far  removed  from  the  Christian  and  scriptural 
ideas  ot  God  and  Providence,  others  approximated  very  closely 
to  Pantheism.  But  in  general,  it  is  a  characteristic  principle 
of  Rationalism  not  to  recognise  any  special  divine  interposition 
in  the  course  of  this  world  or  the  concerns  of  men,  to  explain 
in  a  manner  comprehensible  to  natural  reason  everything  in 
Scripture  which  implies  such  interposition,  all  miracles  and 
special  revelations,  and  so  to  eliminate  the  supernatural 
element  generally. 

At  the  present  time,  both  in  German  and  English  theology, 
this  principle  has  but  few  representatives,  but  reckons  a  pro- 


LECT.  III.] 


DEISM  AND  RATIONALISM. 


193 


portionately  larger  number  among  Swiss  (Zuricli),  French 
(Strasburg),  and  Dutch  (Leyden  and  Groningen)  theologians, 
while  the  great  body  of  educated  laymen,  and  especially  of  the 
students  of  modern  natural  science,  are  confessedly  under  its 
influence.  In  spite  of  all  the  attempts  which  Eationalism  has 
made,  and  is  still  making,  to  find  for  its  theories  a  scriptural 
basis,  we  scarcely  need  any  justification  if  we  class  its  theo¬ 
logical  conceptions  among  the  non-bihlical.  In  every  page, 
indeed,  the  Bible  teaches  a  direct  divine  agency  in  the  world, 
a  providence  extending  to  the  minutest  details  (the  very  hairs 
of  our  head  being  all  numbered),  and  a  constant  dependence 
of  the  world  on  God  for  its  existence  and  guidance ;  points 
which,  in  the  next  lecture  on  the  Scriptural  Idea  of  God,  will 
come  before  us  in  more  detail. 

But  we  affirm  that  this  rationalistic  conception  of  God  is 
not  merely  unscriptural,  but  also  impossible  and  false;  and 
we  maintain  the  untenableness  of  its  'positions  from  a  scientifie 
point  of  vieio, — in  a  word,  the  irrationality  of  Eationalism.  In 
proof  of  these  assertions,  we  may  pursue  a  like  course  to  that 
we  followed  in  the  case  of  Pantheism,  and  consider  in  suc¬ 
cession  the  main  arfruments  which  can  be  adduced  from  a  con- 

O 

sideration  of  the  nature  of  God,  the  'world,  and  man’s  moral 
condition,  against  the  fundamental  positions  of  Deism  and 
Eationalism.  Having  previously  become  acquainted  to  some 
extent  with  the  weakness  of  Eationalism  in  its  denial  of 
revelation  as  such,  and  having  also  to  submit  hereafter  the 
general  question  as  to  the  possibility  of  miracles  to  a  separate 
discussion,  we  need  not  now  do  more  than  take  a  brief  view 
of  its  general  jnlnciple  as  to  the  position  it  assigns  to  God  in 
the  world. 

Deism,  falsely  named  as  it  is,  is  also  in  its  principle  an 
unnatural  corabinoHon  of  conflicting  elements,  adopting  some 
things  even  from  Atheism,  when  it  regards  the  world,  as  now 
constituted,  as  existing  without  God  or  any  divine  influence , 
others  from  IMaterialism  and  Pantheism,  when  it  seeks  to  derive 
all  that  takes  place  in  the  Avorld  from  natural  causes  inherent 
ill  it,  and  to  exclude  all  exercise  of  supernatural  power  on  the 
jmrt  of  God.  So  far.  Deism  shares  in  and  suffers  from  the 
fundamental  faults  of  the  three  other  systems.  But  it  is  itself 
more  inconsistent  than  they,  attempting  to  make  an  essential 

N 


194  MODERN  NON-CIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [lECT.  Ill, 

distinction  between  the  creation  and  that  which  followed  it. 
During  the  creative  process,  the  world,  according  to  Deism, 
was  not  without  God,  but  completely  dependent  on  Him  as  its 
creating  and  shaping  Principle ;  but  ever  since  it  has  been  left 
alone  and  independent.  While  creation  was  going  on,  God  was 
interested  in  the  work  down  to  its  smallest  details,  but  has 
since  withdrawn  Himself  into  His  own  solitude,  and  has 
henceforth  had  an  eye  for  the  whole  only,  and  not  for  any  of 
its  parts.  During  creation,  God  wrought  miracle  after  miracle, 
creation  itself  being  the  greatest  of  all  miracles ;  but  no 
sooner  was  creation  finished,  than  He  tied,  as  it  were.  His  own 
hand,  and  made  any  subsequent  act  of  miraculous  power  a 
thing  impossible.  He  who  could  once  call  worlds  into  being 
cannot  now,  by  an  act  of  miraculous  healing,  restore  to  health 
the  life  of  a  single  invalid.  AVhat  do  we  gain  by  these  evident 
inconsistencies  ?  Only  this,  that  the  world’s  enigma  assumes 
now  for  us  three  forms,  each  more  puzzling  than  the  other. 
We  no  longer  ask  merely,  as  in  respect  to  the  God  of  Holy 
Scripture,  How  was  creation  possible  ?  but  we  have  to  put  the 
further  question.  How  was  it  possible  that  halving  created, 
should  leave  the  world  thus  created  alone How  is  its  present 
independent  continuance  possible  ?  And,  lastly,  how  is  it 
possible  that  God  shotdd  maintain  towards  the  world  now  an 
attitude  so  entirely  different  from  that  which  He  took  in  the 
beginning  ?  At  this  point  the  greatest  difficulties  arise,  in 
respect  both  to  the  nature  and  action  of  God  Himself  and  the 
world’s  position  towards  Him. 

{a)  Let  us,  in  the  first  place,  consider  for  a  moment  the 
difficulties  connected  with  the  nature  of  God  Himself.  Our 
main  objection  to  Deism  on  this  ground  is,  that  God  is  therchy 
made  to  forfeit  His  oivn  divinity.  Is  He  not,  we  ask,  as  the 
most  perfect  Being,  necessarily  the  one  Being  who  is  ever 
consistent  with  Himself  ?  How  can  I  assume  in  Him  a  dis¬ 
tinction  between  action  and  rest,  such  as  would  divide  His 
conduct  towards  the  world  into  tivo  contradictory  positions  ? 
How  could  this  harmonize  with  the  doctrine  of  His  eternal 
unity  and  perfection  ?  Labour  with  Him  is  rest,  and  rest 
labour;  that  wliich  to  us  is  sundered,  is  in  God  one  and  the 
same.  Even  in  the  rest  of  the  seventh  day  His  action  goes 
on,  for  “God,”  we  read,  “blessed  the  seventh  day,  and 


LECT,  III.] 


DEISM  AND  NATIONALISM. 


195 


hallowed  it.”  The  whole  of  Scripture  is  pervaded  by  the 
view  that  God  the  Creator  is  still  continuously  at  work  (John 
V,  17).  Any  one  who  makes  an  absolute  severance  between 
the  divine  action  and  the  divine  rest,  ch-aics  dotv7i  the  infinite 
Godhead  into  the  changing  revolutions  of  the  finite  ! 

How  much  is  this  the  case  in  the  system  w^e  are  consider¬ 
ing  !  How  unworthy  and  how  degrading  in  this  respect  are 
the  conceptions  which  Deism  and  Eationalism  form  of  God’s 
relation  to  the  world  !  After  only  “  six  days’  ”  work,  He  gives 
Himself  up  to  a  state  of  rest,  and  so  remains,  without  giving 
Himself  any  further  trouble  about  its  details,  content  to  take 
an  occasional  glance,  as  if  from  a  shrine  on  the  confines  of  the 
universe,  at  that  universe  as  a  whole !  Where  else  will  you 
find  an  artificer  who  conducts  himself  with  so  much  indiffer¬ 
ence  towards  his  own  finished  w'ork  ?  It  will  hardly  be 
objected  that,  as  it  is  unworthy  of  a  great  ruler  to  trouble 
himself  about  the  insignificant  details  of  government,  so  it  is 
unworthy  of  God  to  extend  His  direct  guidance  and  provi¬ 
dence  to  smaller  matters.  Just  the  contrary  !  A  great  ruler 
is  in  nothing  greater  than  in  his  power  of  dealing  with  details 
that  appear  most  trifling.  It  is  only  inferior  magnates  who 
affect  importance  by  looking  down  upon  small  matters ;  the 
truly  great  neither  despise  nor  are  indifferent  to  anything. 

If,  however,  it  be  asserted  that  God  troubles  Himself  only 
with  moral  and  not  with  physical  details,  it  is  forgotten  surely 
that  the  two  are  most  closely  connected.  How  often  does  the 
most  trivial  matter,  the  most  insignificant  event  in  the  natural 
w’orld,  become  either  the  occasion  or  the  means  of  briiminf; 
about  something  morally  good  or  evil !  If  God  regards  the 
latter.  He  cannot  fail  to  pay  attention  to  the  former ;  if  He 
looks  to  the  result.  He  cannot  be  indifferent  to  every  factor 
which  helps  to  accomplish  it.  And  does  not,  then,  all  nature 
ultimately  tend  towards  some  moved  aim  ?  Was  it  not  moved 
motives  which  moved  God  to  frame  the  world  exactly  as  He 
did,  and  not  in  any  other  way,  and  to  assign  to  everything  its 
proper  place  ?  In  a  true  cosmos,  that  is,  in  an  harmoniously 
developed  organism,  the  smallest  portion  has  a  direct  signifi¬ 
cance  in  the  arrangement  of  the  whole.  If,  then,  the  world, 
in  the  divine  idea  of  it,  is  arranged  on  moral  principles,  as 
nationalism  is  never  weary  of  maintaining,  then  everything 


196  MODEIIN  NOX-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [LECT.  III. 


that  takes  place  therein  is  of  moral  significance,  and  claims 
and  needs  some  attention  from  God. 

And  this  attention  must  be  not  merely  passive,  hut  active 
and  lively.  Are  there  now  operating  in  the  world  not  merely 
natural  powers,  but  creatures  endowed  with  moral  freedom, 
who,  through  their  action,  may  every  moment  disturb,  and 
actually  do  disturb,  the  divine  order  and  harmony  of  the 
whole,  at  least  in  isolated  points,  and  can  it  be  supposed  that 
God  should  quietly  look  on  without  any  counteraction  on  His 
part  ?  If,  as  the  Holy  One,  He  must  be  conducting  the  world 
towards  some  kind  of  holiness  as  its  consummation,  and  yet 
man  is  allowed  the  freedom  of  opposing  this  consummation 
with  all  his  powers,  if  every  moment  it  is  being  counteracted 
in  some  Avay  by  sin  in  the  case  of  numberless  individuals,  can 
it  be  supposed  that  God  is  to  remain  unsympathetic  and  in¬ 
active  ?  Does  He  not  owe  it  to  Himself  and  to  the  world  to 
suffer  nothing  to  remain  exempt  from  His  guidance,  or  to  occur 
without  His  permission,  by  a  holy  rule  of  providence  to  set 
some  limits  to  the  misuse  of  human  freedom,  and  to  neutralize 
some  of  its  pernicious  workings  by  a  wholesome  counter¬ 
action  ?  And  will  not  such  a  providential  government  come 
in  contact  in  a  thousand  ways  with  the  processes  of  the 
physical  universe,  and  necessarily  react  upon  them,  as  indeed 
is  the  case  with  all  human  activity  ? 

Human  freedom  and  its  correlative,  the  .holiness  of  the 
divine  will  and  law,  render  necessary  a  continual  and  active 
interposition  on  the  part  of  Divine  Providence  in  the  course  of 
the  w'orld’s  development.  It  may  be  said  that,  in  the  laws  of 
the  world’s  “moral  order,”  we  have  an  adequate  security  for 
the  due  maintenance  of  that  order,  and  the  gradual  conducting 
of  the  universe  to  its  final  consummation.  But  that  is  the 
same  error  that  we  have  previously  censured  in  Pantheism, 
assuming  that  mere  law,  i.e.  something  impersonal,  can  control 
persons  and  counteract  free-will.  Either  this  law,  this  moral 
order,  is  so  inflexible  in  its  nature  that  it  cannot  be  broken,  in 
which  case  it  is  all  up  with  human  freedom  and  with  the  whole 
distinction  between  right  and  wrong,  that  is,  with  morality 
itself ;  or  this  moral  order  can  be  broken,  and  is,  in  fact,  con¬ 
stantly  threatened  and  opposed  by  the  operation  of  creaturely 
free-will in  that  case,  how  can  it  be  maintained,  except  by 


I.ECT,-  III.] 


DEISM  AND  RATIONALISM. 


197 


constant  interpositions  on  the  part  of  God  restoring  it  when 
impaired,  or  making  preparations  for  the  future  removal  ol  the 
disturbances  introduced  by  sin  ?  In  other  words,  so  far  from 
a  “  moral  order  of  the  world”  rendering  the  living  activity  of 
God  in  the  world  superfluous,  some  such  interference  is,  on 
the  contrary,  rendered  necessary  by  its  very  existence. 

We  see  that  the  most  fundamentally  essential  attribute  of 
God,  His  holiness,  is  not  compatible  with  the  denial  of  a 
divine  providence  actively  extended  to  every  individual.  But 
God  would  lose  in  like  manner  all  His  other  attributes  too,  if 
condemned  to  a  repose  so  unworthy  of  Him,  in  the  face  of  the 
continuous  developments  of  the  universe.  There  lies  the  world 
with  all  its  sins  and  sorrows,  and  God  Himself  may  not’stir  a 
finger  to  come  to  its  help  !  Where,  in  this  case,  are  His 
goodness  and  faithfulness.  His  mercy  and  'pity  ?  How  am  I 
still  to  look  on  Him  as  love,  when  this  love  has  long  since 
ceased  to  reveal  itself  to  its  creatures  ?  What  is  to  become 
of  His  omnipresence,  if  He  can  never  actively  manifest  it  within 
the  sphere  of  creation  ?  What  does  His  ivisdom  profit  me,  and 
how  should  His  omniscience  inspire  me  with  dread,  if  my 
human  life  remains  unaffected  by  either  ?  In  short,  the  God 
of  the  rationalists  ceases  to  he  God  ;  in  ceasing  to  be  truly  good 
and  living.  He  has  divested  Himself  generally  of  all  divine 
attributes.  For  all  life  is  activity,  and  the  highest  life  is  the 
highest  activity.  Hence,  a  God  who  reposes  in  inaction  ceases 
to  be  a  source  of  life — ceases,  in  fact,  to  be  God. 

(h)  Objections  of  no  less  importance  to  deistical  theology 
arise  from  the  consideration  of  the  ivorld  in  its  relation  to  God. 
Our  second  class  of  objections  to  Deism  rest  on  the  following 
position  :  Just  as  God  loses  his  Godhead,  so  also  the  creature 
loses  its  creedvrely  character,  when  the  deistical  conception  is 
received  !  The  world  did  not  create  itself,  and  yet  is  supposed 
able  to  maintain  itself  without  its  Creator.  This  view,  is 
■  based  upon  a  twofold  hypothesis  :  first,  that  the  world,  by  means 
of  inherent  laws,  can,  as  it  were,  from  its  own  resources,  vrocred 
to  further  developments ;  and  next,  that  its  organism,  just  as  it 
is,  is  absolutely  perfect,  rendering  unnecessary  any  further 
interference  on  the  part  of  its  Originator.  Both  these 
assumptions  are  but  half  truths.  It  is,  of  course,  true  that 
God  has  implanted  in  things  themselves  the  laws  of  their 


193  MODERN  NON-EIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [LECT.  III. 


nature  and  natural  operation ;  but  is  complete  repose  thereby 
enforced  upon  Him  ?  Does  any  reasonable  man  adjust  liis 
work  in  such  a  way  that  he  completely  binds  his  hands  in 
future,  and  condemns  himself  to  become  a  mere  looker-on  ? 
What  is  that  which  men  call  “  ilu  play  of  accident f  but  an 
exercise  of  divine  freedom  within  the  settled  course  of  nature  ? 
If  God  has  subjected  the  powers  of  nature  to  the  laws  of 
nature,  it  does  not  follow  that  He  subjects  Himself  to  Ilis 
own  creation.  How  can  God  possibly  be  placed  in  opposition 
to  His  own  laws  ?  What  are  these  laws  ?  Are  they  things 
existing  by  themselves,  and  independent  of  the  will  of  God  ? 
A  law  taken  by  itself  is  nothing  more  than  a  particular  way 
or  rule,  in  or  by  which  a  power  works  or  a  movement  runs  its 
course.  Without  this  impelling  power  the  law  can  effect  and 
is  nothing.  Hence,  it  is  an  incorrect  use  of  language  when  a 
mere  law  is  described  as  a  motive  cause.  And  so  the  laws  of 
nature,  if  devoid  of  any  power  and  intelligence  working  in 
them  and  through  them,  are  mere  abstractions,  which  we 
gather  from  a  series  of  observations  resembling  one  another, 
but  which  are  not  in  themselves  enduring  realities.  But  if, 
as  Deism  confesses,  God  made  all  things  as  they  are  in  the 
world,  then  the  power  and  the  intelligence  which  operate  in 
the  laws  of  nature  must  be  a  divine  power  and  a  divine  in¬ 
telligence.  How,  then,  can  they  be  opposed  to  the  divine  will 
and  action  as  independent  and  exclusive  energies  ? 

It  is  true  that  modern  ncdural  science,  as  a  rule,  maintains 
this  doctrine.  It  talks  so  much  about  the  laws  of  nature,  that 
at  the  present  time  the  latter,  in  the  view  of  numberless  lay¬ 
men,  are  become  independent  divinities,  each  absolute  lord  in 
its  own  special  domain,  and  repudiating  all  interference  even 
from  God  Himself.  The  old  heathen  personified  the  forces  of 
nature  and  made  them  demi-gods ;  we  do  the  same,  and  call 
them  laws.  The  heathen,  however,  wmre  rational  enough  to 
place  these  individual  lesser  gods  in  subjection  to  the  IMost 
High ;  while  we  invest  our  laws  of  nature  with  sovereign 
power,  in  whose  august  presence  the  very  hands  of  God  Him- 
sel  are  tied  and  bound  !  In  our  time,  therefore,  natural 
science  has  become  the  main  suvvort  of  the  separation  made  hy 
Deism  between  God  and  the  world.  It  has  followed  out  all  the 
processes  of  development  in  both  organic  and  inorganic  nature 


LECT.  m.] 


PEISM  AND  RATIONALISM. 


199 


SO  miicli  more  profoundly  than  was  ever  done  before,  and  in 
that  way  brought  to  light  so  many  fresh  laws  of  natural 
change,  and  it  has  so  succeeded  in  reducing  almost  the  whole 
world  of  phenomena  to  its  registers  and  categories,  that,  in 
fact,  the  temptation  is  a  very  natural  one  to  recognise  nothing 
else  but  these  laws  themselves,  and  to  regard  any  constantly 
operating  or  spontaneous  intervention  on  the  part  of  God  as 
not  merely  useless  but  disturbing.  But  that  when  the  law  of 
any  phenomenon  has  been  discovered,  the  real  mystery  of  its 
being  is  still  far  from  heing  chared  u'p,  and  nothing  thereby 
really  explained,  but  only  some  assistance  afforded  to  future 
observations ;  and  that,  therefore,  every  law  should  be  traced 
back  to  its  lawgiver,  and  to  the  motives  that  guided  him,  are 
points  for  the  most  part  overlooked  by  the  advocates  of 
natural  science. 

And  so  it  came  to  pass  that  the  further  discoveries  were 
'pushed  in  'natural  science,  the  smcdler  hecame  the  province  iciiich 
icas  If  ft  remaining  for  the  creative  action  of  God.  Whilst  the 
old  Deism  and  Naturalism  assigned  to  God  a  “  six  days’  work,” 
and  not  until  the  process  of  creation  had  come  to  an  end 
oought  to  make  the  world  independent  of  Him,  our  modern 
systems  claim  His  services  for  nothing  more  than  the  mere 
production  of  the  original  matter.  With  the  words,  “  In  the 
beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth,”  the  Bible 
of  modern  science  begins  and  ends.  Any  further  special 
divine  action  or  revelation  i^  unnecessary.  And  why  ? 
Modern  natural  science  has  taught  Deism  that  the  world  is 
not  only  able  to  maintain  itself  in  the  state  in  which  it  was 
created,  but  that  the  forces  and  laws  inherent  in  the  original 
matter  are  also  perfectly  adequate  to  infinite  development. 
First  formed  itself,  in  virtue  of  some  internal  necessary  develop¬ 
ment,  a  primary  cell  or  bladder;  and  this  became  the  germ  of 
the  first  orgapism ;  from  this  were  developed,  in  the  next 
place,  forms  of  life  more  and  more  complete,  species  of  vege¬ 
tables  and  animals  ever  higher  in  their  grade,  until  at  last, 
from  the  most  perfect  specimen  of  ape,  proceeded  man !  All 
this  is  supposed  to  have  happened  without  any  special  opera¬ 
tion  on  the  part  of  God,  and  merely  through  the  laws 
immanent  in  nature. 

Any  closer  consideration  of  these  theories,  which  supply  so 


200  MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [lECT.  Ill, 


much  assistance  to  Eationalism,  would  enter  on  the  question 
of  the  origin  of  man,  wliich  we  cannot  dwell  upo7i.  now.  All 
we  can  do  here  is  to  remind  ourselves  that,  as  already  shown, 
the  assumption  that  organic  life  can  he  produced  by  the  in¬ 
organic,  is  rejected  as  untenable  by  science ;  and  further,  that 
the  new  Darwinian  theory  of  the  origin  of  species,  finds  its 
most  important  positions  impugned  on  the  basis  of  undeniable 
matters  of  fact.  Why  are  not  new  species  continually  starting 
up  in  the  present  day  ?  Why  is  it  that  individuals  bred  by 
an  artificial  system  of  crossing  can  never  prolong  tlieir  species 
for  any  length  of  time  ?  Why  does  nature  herself  in  every 
case  place  such  limits  to  her  various  species,  as  clearly  and 
sharply  to  divide  the  one  from  the  other  ?  Why  do  not  the 
lower  plants  and  animals  at  the  present  day  gradually  improve 
themselves  into  higher  forms  of  life,  and  ultimately  rise  into 
man  ?  JIow  can  so  many  of  the  very  lowest  organisms,  in 
spite  of  their  imperfection,  maintain  their  position  against 
those  which  are  so  much  further  advanced  ?  Why,  amongst 
the  fossil  vegetables  and  animals  which  we  discover  in  the 
geological  strata  of  the  earth,  do  we  never  find  those  interme- 
diate  stages  which  once  formed  the  transition  between  the 
species  which  now  often  differ  so  widely  from  one  another? 
The  geological  strata  show  most  clearly  that  new  species  arose 
and  disappeared  without  any  internal  connection  in  resycct  to 
their  origin.  Would  not  any  formation  of  separate  species,  by 
means  of  constant  fresh  alterations  and  combinations  of 
unlimited  progression,  be  an  impossibility,  and  would  not  the 
world  become  a  chaotic  confusion  of  forms  ?  And  how  does 
Darwin’s  theory  consist  with  the  teleology  which  governs 
nature,  and  with  the  impulse  of  formation  which  is  directed 
towards  something  future  and  still  invisible  ?  Generally  speak¬ 
ing,  does  not  “  the  struggle  for  existence”  leave  innumerable 
pe’-uliarities  unexplained.  Of  what  nature  might  “  tlie  struggle 
for  existence”  be  in  which  the  violet  became  blue  and  the  rose 
red  ? 

With  these  and  other  weighty  arguments  the  most  enlight¬ 
ened  natural  philosophers  repel  these  theories.^  If,  however, 

*  Among  the  opponents  of  tlie  transmutation  theory  it  is  here  only  necessary  to 
mention  Pictet,  Diicklaiul,  Se  lgwick,  Owen,  Hitchcock  {TIte  Iteligion  oj  Oeo~ 
logy),  A'^iissiz {Co iitributioiis  to  the  Natural  History  oJ  the  United  States,  ill.). 


LECT.  III.] 


DEISM  AND  EATIONALISM. 


201 


the  various  species  and  families  did  not  proceed  spontaneously 
one  from  the  other,  it  is  clear  fiat  some  kind  of  interven¬ 
ing  creative  activity  on  the  part  of  God  was  necessary  for  the 
formation  of  species.  “  That  new  systems  should  arise  out  of 
old  ones  without  the  intervention  of  God’s  power  is  absurd” 
(Newton). 

But  here  we  must  leave  these  questions.  At  the  present 
day,  on  the  ground  of  natural  science  only,  the  first  hypothesis, 
that  the  world  has  inherent  powers  of  self-development,  is  no 
longer  found  acceptable. 

But  next,  how  stands  the  case  with  the  second  hypothesis : 
that  the  constitution  of  the  world,  just  as  it  is,  is  so  absolutely 
perfect,  that  any  interposition  on  the  part  of  God  would  only 
disturb  it?  The  older  systems  of  Eationalism  laid  it  down,  that 
to  maintain  the  imperfection  of  nature  is  to  bring  a  charge 
against  the  Creator.  But  in  this  view,  the  distinction  between 
the  world  per  se,  as  it  proceeded  from  the  hand  of  God,  and  its 
present  condition,  is  entirely  overlooked.  May  there  not  in 
the  latter  be  disturbances  which  arise  from  the  fault  of  the 
creature,  and,  consequently,  are  not  chargeable  on  the  Creator  ? 
Is  it  not  a  truth  that  death  was  a  consequence  of  sin  ?  Is 
not  this  confirmed  by  experience  ?  Are  there  not  in  the 
natural  world  perfect  masses  of  physical  evil  ?  Have  we  not 
seen  some  professors  of  natural  science  taking  pains  to  par¬ 
ticularize  the  imperfectioua^pf  nature,  with  a  view,  indeed,  of 
denying  the  idea  of  divine  providence  ?  How  'strange  it  is  to 
see  maintained,  on  the  one  hand,  the  absolute  perfection  of 
the  world’s  organism,  and,  on  the  other,  its  faultiness  asserted 
as  zealously !  only  both  in  like  opposition  to  the  idea  of  God 
authorized  in  Holy  Scripture.  Evidently  in  '  this  case  the 
truth  lies  between  the  two  extremes  ;  and  that  truth  is,  that 
the  world  is  now  only  on  the  way  to  perfection,  and  therefore 
cannot  as  yet  be  perfected.  Unquestionably  an  infinite 
wisdom  is  manifested  in  the  general  arrangements  of  the 

Forbes,  Falconer,  Quatrefagiies,  Eougeraont,  Andreas,  and  End.  Wagner 
(Agassiz’  Prindpien  der  Classijik.  der  organ.  Kiirper — mit  Pilchsiclii  auf 
Darwin’s  Ansichten,  1860  ;  Zoologiscli-antliropolog.  Untersuchungen,  1861,  and 
others),  Job.  iliiller,  Gbppert,  Heer,  Ebper,  Czolbe,  Giebel  {Der  Mensch,  sein 
Korperhau,  etc.,  1868,  in  which  Darwin’s  theory  is  designated  “a  chaos  of 
incredibilities  and  foolhardy  assumptions”)  :  amobg  older  authorities,  Cuvier, 
etc. 


202  moder:^  nox-biclical  conceptions  of  god.  [lect.  hi. 


cosmos  as  a  whole.  But  this  does  not  exclude  the  pos¬ 
sibility  of  disturbances  and  evils  finding  an  entry  into  it. 
Such  disturbances  are  plain  matters  of  fact ;  and  in  the  face 
of  them  to  speak  of  the  world’s  absolute  perfection,  is  truly 
to  make  an  idol  of  nature. 

But  apart  from  these  disturbances  of  moral  order,  which 
render  divine  interpositions  doubly  necessary,  let  us  only 
realize  the  position  in  which  the  world  would  stand  in  regard 
to  God,  if  His  continuous  agency  therein  were  henceforth  to 
be  considered  unnecessary  and  impossible.  A  world  so  inde¬ 
pendent  of  its  Creator  would  cease  to  ha  a  creature,  and  hccome 
itself  a  part  of  the  Ahsolute,  a  manifestation  of  Deity  !  But 
God  never  can  release  any  created  thing,  however  perfect, 
from  its  condition  of  creaturely  dependence ;  how  much  less 
this  present  world  of  sorrow  and  imperfection  !  Self -maintain¬ 
ing  and  self -perfecting  on  the  part  of  the  world  are  just  as  im¬ 
possible  as  its  self-creation.  Either  the  world  is  a  created  thing, 
and  in  that  case  is  and  remains  dependent  on  God,  and  subject 
to  His  rule  and  action  ;  or  it  is  independent  and  self- develop¬ 
ing,  and  in  that  case,  must  have  been  so  from  all  eternity,  and 
therefore  the  idea  of  God  as  its  personal  Creator  must  be 
given  up.  You  see  the  self-contradictions  of  Deism. :  a  living 
personal  God  is  assumed  who  yet  has  no  authority  over  His 
creatures ;  a  world  is  supposed  to  have  been  created  by  Him, 
and  yet  to  remain  entirely  independent !  Science  is  com¬ 
pelled  to  press  forwards  beyond  these  contradictions,  and 
either  to  accept  a  living  God  standing  in  a  relation  of  con¬ 
tinuous  activity  to  the  world  of  creatures  (Theism),  or,  in  order 
to  maintain  consistently  the  world’s  independence,  to  surrender 
the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Personality  (Pantheism).  Hence, 
even  in  the  first  years  of  the  present  century,  philosophy  began 
to  turn  her  back  on  her  former  allies  Deism  and  Ptationalism, 
and  in  some  cases  somewhat  rudely,^  as  now  in  our  own  time 
Strauss  ridicules  with  trenchant  criticism  “  the  half-and-half 
ones,”  who  stop  short  of  his  conclusions.  The  conflict  hence- 

^  Cf.,  Tor  instance,  what  Hegel  says  in  his  treatise  Glauben  vnd  Wissen,  in  the 
Critical  Journal  of  Schelling  and  Hegel,  ii.  p.  1: — “Since  stupidity  and 
meanness  have  presumed  to  call  themselves  sound  human  understanding  and 
morality,  there  are  no  longer  any  limits  to  their  worthlessness  and  shameless¬ 
ness,  and  we  cannot  help  considering  this  mere  skin  of  morality  as  the  very 
worst  cloak  in  which  conceited  ignorance  ever  hid  itself.” 


LECT.  III.] 


DEISM  AND  RATIONALISM. 


203 


forth  must  turn  almost  exclusively  on  the  question  whether 
we  are  to  believe  in  the  God  of  the  Bible,  or  acquiesce  in  the 
theories  of  a  pantheistic  Materialism. 

(c)  A  single  glance  at  the  third  aspect  in  which  we  pro¬ 
posed  to  contemplate  Deism,  its  influence  on  human  morals, 
will  make  this  yet  more  evident.  Our  third  objection  to  that 
system  may  be  stated  thus ;  As  Deism  deprives  God  of  His 
divinity  and  the  wmrld  of  its  creaturely  character,  so  does  it 
in  like  proportion  tend  to  deprive  morality  of  its  main  mpport 
and  standing-ground,  religion  of  its  mainspring  and  lever,  and 
the  history  of  manlcind  of  the  one  Iccy  required  to  disclose  its 
enigmas.  And  all  this  simply  because  the  God  of  Deism  has 
ceased,  as  we  have  seen,  to  be  the  All-Holy  and  the  All-Good, 
the  living,  self-revealing,  and  self-communicating  Love,  and 
the  all-wise  Providence  wdiich  directs  all  things.  What  is  to 
maintain  order  in  the  moral  world,  and  to  dispose  and  rule 
over  creatures  endowed  wdth  freedom,  if  God  has  ceased  to 
concern  Himself  about  individual  acts  and  persons  ?  One 
who  believes  in  moral  order  at  all  must  also  believe  in  a 
Providence  which  interests  itself  in  the  smallest  matters  of 
detail.  A  very  sparrow  falling  to  the  ground, — how  much 
more  any  action  on  the  part  of  a  moral  free  agent ! — might 
produce  disorder  in  the  wdiole,  if  it  could  take  place  without 
the  cognizance  of  the  Father  in  heaven. 

And  if  you  say  it  is  unworthy  of  man  as  a  free  agent  to  be 
in  everything  so  strictly  wutched,  and  limited  on  all  sides  by 
the  hand  of  God,  you  say  what  no  doubt  is  very  natural;  in 
the  desire  to  emancipate  oneself  from  the  inconvenient  super¬ 
vision  and  guidance  of  the  Just  and  Holy  One,  lies  probably 
the  deepest  and  most  influential  motive  of  Deism,  though  I 
would  not  say  that  such  must  be  the  case  in  every  instance. 
But,  from  another  point  of  view,  we  may  surely  notice  what 
comfortless  results,  as  regards  the  whole  of  our  moral  and 
religious  strivings,  are  involved  in  the  denial  of  a  special 
providence  !  Everything  that  takes  place  around  us  has  some 
influence  on  our  life.  If  God  does  not  trouble  Himself  about 
everything,  our  wellbeing  is  but  little  dear  to  Him.  In  the 
eyes  of  a  human  fatlier,  even  the  pebble  with  which  Ins  child 
is  playing  is  not  without  its  importance ;  and  yet  God  is  sup¬ 
posed  to  remain  unsympathetic  in  regard  to  anything  wdiich 


204  MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONUEBTIONS  OF  GOD,  [lECT.  III. 

Las  reference  to  the  life  of  His  children  !  And  if  such  a  con¬ 
stantly  attentive  sympathy  is  not  dne  to  Himself  and  to  Ilis 
absolute  perfection,  still  it  is  due  to  and  to  the^ special  needs 
of  our  immortal  spirit.  Whosoever  asserts  that  God  looks  on 
indifferently  at  the  course  of  the  world,  can  have  no  real  con¬ 
ception  of  the  infinite  ivorth  of  a  human  soul,  and  of  the  im¬ 
portance  which  attaches  to  it  and  its  actions  in  the  sight  of 
God. 

But  further,  if  God  does  not  trouble  Himself  about  me  as 
regards  anything  that  I  do  or  suffer,  the  inference  seems  a 
just  one,  that  He  cannot  require  'me  to  trouhle  myself  much 
about  Him  in  like  respects.  In  other  words,  the  inmost  main¬ 
spring  is  removed  from  my  moral  and  religious  life  and  con¬ 
sciousness.  For  if  God  be  no  longer  the  ever-near  One  whose 
eyes  watch  over  me,  and  whose  love  illumines  my  life,  but 
infinitely  far  away,  then  the  thought  of  Him  can  no  longer  be 
any  encouragement  in  good,  any  comfort  in  affliction,  any  guard 
against  evil,  or  any  refuge  in  the  hour  of  need  ;  and  so,  neither 
fear  of  God,  nor  confidence  in  Him,  can  remain  in  any  measure 
the  guiding  principle  of  my  life.  Then  I  no  longer  know 
whether  He  hears  my  prayers  and  heeds  my  aspirations  ;  I  no 
longer  make  my  complaints  to  Him  ;  I  can  no  longer  demand 
anything  of  Him  ;  indeed,  I  cannot  even  justly  hope  for  any 
future  reward,  for  this  would  presuppose  that  God  pays  strict 
attention  to  minute  details.  Of  loliat  profit  to  me  is  a  God 
of  this  kind?  I  cannot  make  any  use  of  Him!  For,  as 
Luther  says,  “A  God  is  One  from  whom  we  expect  to  receive 
every  good  thing,  and  in  whom  we  may  find  a  shelter  in  every 
hour  of  distress.”  If  I  cannot  place  this  confidence  in  God, 
He  is  of  little  help  to  me,  and  the  inmost  impulse  of  my 
religious  feeling  must  be  stunted  ! 

In  fact,  he  who  believes  that  prayer  is  heard,  must  also 
believe  in  a  special  Providence.  But  is  not  all  history  full  of 
instances  of  particular  answers  to  prayer,  of  deliverances  out 
of  trouble,  vouchsafed  to  God’s  children  by  means  of  special 
dispensations  of  Providence,  and  of  special  judicial  visitations 
for  particular  acts  of  wickedness  ?  After  all,  is  not  the 
existence  of  the  Christian  Church  on  earth,  and  the  main¬ 
tenance  of  its  position  amid  a  thousand  storms,  a  sufficient 
proof  of  a  special  Providence  ?  Even  at  the  present  day,  does 


LECT.  III.] 


DEISM  AND  RATIONALISM. 


205 


not  the  daily  life  of  the  Christian  afford  a  sufficient  practical 
proof  of  God’s  merciful  and  judicial  rule,  not  only  over,  hut  in, 
the  world,  that  is,  in  the  midst  of  men  ?  Could  not  even  some 
from  among  you,  my  honoured  hearers,  stand  forth  as  living 
witnesses  of  this  ?  --Will  it  he  desired  to  relegate  to  the  realms 
of  fancy,  as  a  matter  of  course,  all  the  most  precious  experi¬ 
ences  of  the  children  of  God  of  His  nearness  and  help,  and, 
in  the  face  of  the  moral  grandeur  of  the  ancient  heroes  of  the 
faith,  to  hold  it  to  he  possible,  that,  as  regards  this  point, 
fanciful  conceptions  and  continuous  self-deceptions  should 
exist  together  with  the  clear  light  of  their  spiritual  knowledge  ? 
Well,  if  it  he  so,  we  shall  soon  enoimh  have  to  recognise  the 
fact,  that  we  have  lost  the  key  which  would  enable  us  to 
understand  the  world  and  its  history,  and  the  conduct  of  life 
in  every  individual !  Without  the  providence  of  God  guiding 
everything,  and  with  a  holy  arm  leading  on  the  course  of  the 
world  to  its  ultimate  aim,  the  world  and  its  history,  both  as  a 
whole  and  in  detail,  presents  itself,  both  to  the  pantheist  (as 
before  remarked),  and  also  to  the  deist  and  the  rationalist,  as 
one  great  unsolved  enigma,  which  the  longer  it  is  pondered 
over,  becomes  the  more  dark  and  perplexed  !  But  even  then, 
in  dealing  with  him  who  would  sever  God  from  the  world,  we 
might  at  least  refer  him  to  his  conscience,  and  say  :  In  it  thou 
hearest  God’s  warning  voice,  in  it  God’s  will  is  laid  down — 
the  will  of  a  God  not  infinitely  distant,  as  thou  thinkest,  but 
dwelling  in  the  midst  of  the  world,  and  of  that  which  is 
taking  place  in  it,  and  in  the  inmost  recesses  of  thine  own 
heart !  For  “  He  is  not  far  from  every  one  of  us :  for  in  Him 
we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being.” 

Hor  is  there,  finally,  much  gain  for  Kationalism,  when,  in. its 
latest  form,  it  seeks  to  extend  and  diversify  the  possibility  of 
divine  influence  in  the  world  by  teaching  that  God  works 
upon  us  tlirough  the  threefold  agencies  of  the  economy  of 
nature,  the  moral  order  of  the  world,  and  the  sj)iritual  order 
of  His  kingdom,  but  through  these  only.^  For,  after  all,  it 
makes  no  great  difference  whether  God’s  action  is  confined 
within  the  narrow  scheme  of  one  or  three  immutable  ordi¬ 
nances.  His  own  divine  life  and  freedom,  and  with  them  the 

*  Cf.  particulaiTy,  A.  Schweizer,  CJnistl.  Olaubcnslehre  nacli  protestant. 
Grumlsutzen. 


20G  MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF  GOD.  [LECT.  III. 


moral  and  religious  life  of  man,  are,  in  any  case,  limited  and 
endangered  to  the  uttermost.  What  does  it  profit  to  allow 
God  the  free  use  of  these  three  fingers — the.  Econom.y  of 
Xature,  of  Moral  Order,  and  of  His  own  Spiritual  Kingdom — 
by  which  to  touch  us,  if,  as  to  the  rest.  His  hands  are  to  con¬ 
tinue  bound  ?  What  does  it  profit  to  show  that,  in  the  great 
musical  clock,  so  to  speak,  of  the  world’s  course,  not  one  or 
two,  but  three  different  cylinders  are  fixed,  if  in  the  move¬ 
ment  of  even  these  three  no  alteration  is  henceforth  to  be 
made  in  time  and  harmony  ?  Ko  ;  if  God  is  the  living,  the 
holy,  the  merciial,  and  the  faithful  One,  He  must  have  reserved 
to  Himself  free  and  unencumbered  movement  in  the  world  He 
has  created.  If  God  be  Master  in  His  own  house.  He  cannot, 
as  it  were,  have  walled  in  Himself  within  immutable  ordinances, 
by  which  His  action  as  regards  every  detail  of  the  world’s 
development  has  been  prescribed  from  all  eternity.  Nay,  v’e 
must  believe  that  He  rules  the  world  according  to  meris  inored 
conduct,  and  constantly  adayts  the  course  of  nature  to  express  His 
judgment  concerning  that  conduct.  Were  it  not  the  case,  nian 
himself  would  not  be  really  free,  and  all  his  actions,  his  good 
as  well  as  his  evil  conduct,  would  form  but  items  in  ^a  pre¬ 
determined  order ;  his  very  fall  and  all  his  acts  of  sin  being 
included  in  it,  as,  indeed,  some  rationalists  are  very  apt  to 
allow.  AVe  are  thus  landed  in  an  inflexible  determinism, 
which  destroys  the  worth  or  worthlessness  of  all  our  actions. 

Nor  does  it  fare  better,  on  this  theory,  with  our  religious 
than  with  our  moral  life  If  God  be  connected  with  man 
through  those  three  Economies  alone,  then  must  they  also 
be  tlie  only  bridge  whereby  man  can  reach  to  God.  But  such 
provision  would  be  inadequate  to  his  religious  need.  Man  needs 
a  personal  immediate  union  with  God,  and  not  merely  that 
effected  by  these  inflexible  Economies.  In  religion,  especially 
in  the  Christian  form  of  it- — childlike  communion  witli  the 
Father  of  spirits — man  makes  a  personal  and  immediate 
surrender  of  himself,  and  desires  therefore  also  to  receive,  no 
less  immediately  from  God  Himself,  that  which  he  requires  for- 
his  personal  needs.  His  "  soul  is  athirst  for  God,  for  the 
living  God,”  who  works  and  communicates  Himself  in  living, 
um uttered  action,  in  accordance  with  laws  not  outside  Himself, 
but  inherent  in  His  own  nature. 


LECT.  III.] 


DEISM  AND  RATIONALISM. 


207 


In  brief,  this  system  assumes  that  God  is  a  living  Person, 
and  yet  unable  to  move  or  give  any  signs  of  free  life ;  that 
God  is  love,  and  yet  unable  to  communicate  His  love ;  that 
He  is  holy,  and  yet  unable  to  act  against  evil  either  as  a 
whole  or  in  detail ;  that  we  must  believe  in  some  future  and 
eternal  retribution,  and  yet  deny  that  everything  takes  place 
under  God’s  immediate  sujrervision  and  guidance;  that  the 
world  was  made  by  Him,  but  is  now  independent,  and  gets 
on  well  without  Him ;  that  God  created  man  in  His  own 
image,  but  cannot  conduct  his  education  by  any  immediate 
action  from  Himself;  that  He  has  given  to  man  desires  after 
personal  communion  which  He  cannot  meet  half-way  or  assist ; 
that  I  am  to  pray  to  God  though  He  cannot  hear  me,  or  at 
least  can  vouchsafe  me  no  special  answer ;  that,  because  the 
harmonious  interworking  of  God’s  universal  operation  and  of 
His  special  action  in  regard  to  individuals  involves,  as  un¬ 
doubtedly  it  does,  a  yet  unfathomed  mystery,  I  am  simply  to 
deny  the  latter,  though  all  history  and  my  own  personal  experi¬ 
ence  are  full  of  its  traces,  and  perfectly  unintelligible  without 
the  assumption  of  some  special  interpositions ;  that,  in  order 
therefore  to  evade  one  enigma,  we  are  to  create  a  thousand 
others ;  that  the  mighty  miracle  of  the  world’s  creation  is 
never  to  be  followed  by  any  others ;  that  we  men  are  no 
longer  to  believe  in  ought  miraculous,  though  man  himself 
be  a  miracle,  of  which  no  interpretation  can  be  found  in  the 
mere  laws  of  nature  !  Is  not  all  this  the  very  irrationality  of 
Rationalism,  the  unreason  of  the  faith  of  reason  ? 

In  fact,  honoured  hearers,  I  need  only  ask  you  which  of 
the  two  stands  higher,  and  must  do  so  in  our  innermost  con¬ 
victions, — which  of  the  two  thinks  and  feels  more  nobly,  more 
truly,  more  religiously :  the  man  who  seats  the  Creator  out¬ 
side  the  doors  of  His  own  house,  and  will  not  suffer  Him  to 
exercise  any  kind  of  special  intervention  therein ;  or  he  whose 
soul  is  so  deeply  pervaded  by  a  sense  of  the  divine  nearness  and 
ever-present  activity,  that  he  sees  or  feels'  the  finger  of  God  in 
everything  that  happens,  and  traces  his  hand  of  love  in  every 
gift  and  blessing,  and,  overcome  by  the  thought  of  such 
infinite  condescension  to  each  individual  soul,  cries  out,  "  What 
is  man,  that  Thou  art  mindful  of  him?  and  the  son  of  man,  that 
Thou  visitest  him  ?  ”  Put  Thou  my  tears  into  Thy  bottle ; 


208  MODERN  NON-BIBLICAL  COXCEBTIONS  OF  GOD.  [lECT.  III. 


are  they  not  all  numherecl  in  Thy  book  ?  ”  “  Behold,  He  that 

keepeth  Israel  neither  sluinbereth  nor  sleepetli  ”  ?  Compare 
these  two  together,  and  let  your  hearts  decide  the  controversy. 

There  is,  however,  after  all,  some  amount  of  truth  even  in 
the  deistic  and  rationalist  theory.  We  must  not  deny  this. 
It  acknowledges  the  Divine  Personality,  and  God  as  the 
Creator  ;  it  insists,  in  opposition  to  Pantheism,  on  His  supra- 
mimdane  character.  Only  it  overstrains  the  separation  be¬ 
tween  the  world  and  God,  and  makes  it  a  complete  severance, 
whereby  God  ceases  to  be  a  living  God,  and  the  world  ceases 
to  be  a  creature  dependent  on  Him. 

Nor  must  we  ignore  the  points  of  truth  contained  even  in 
the  deistical  denial  of  any  Divine  Interpositions.  In  the  first 
place,  no  divine  interposition  can  ever  be  a  merely  arMtrary 
one.  God  ever  works  by  plan  and  rule,  and  in  accordance 
with  His  own  internal  laws.  But  these  laws  are  internal,  self- 
imposed  by  the  necessity  of  His  own  divine  nature  and  all-holy 
will,  not  imposed  upon  Him  as  limitations  from  without.  He 
remains  therefore  always,  these  laws  notwithstanding,  free  and 
unfettered. 

]\Ioreover,  it  is  true  that,  in  His  rule  and  operation,  God 
neither  can  nor  will  disturb  the  sacred  Economies  which  He 
has  Himself  established.  Nor  does  Holy  Scripture  ever  make 
Him  do  this.  The  God  of  the  Bible  is,  and  continues  to  be, 
a  God  of  order.  But  precisely  because  He  is  this.  He  cannot 
persevere- in  the  quiescence  of  indifference,  but  is  compelled 
to  interpose  ;  not  to  break  the  world’s  order,  but  to  repair  its 
disorder  by  His  own  holy  and  curative  influence.  This  will 
be  shown  more  fully  in  our  consideration  of  miracles.  It  is, 
moreover,  true  that,  as  a  rule,  God  exercises  His  rule  and 
providence,  not  in  extraordinary  ways,  by  means  of  constant 
miraculous  interpositions,  but  through  the  laws  and  forces 
implanted  in  ITis  creatures,  and  that  in  doing  this  He  makes 
use  of  both  circumstances  and  men.  But  for  that  very  reason 
His  omuipresence  and  universal  activity  and  His  special 
providence  are  all  the  more  necessary.  Nor  does  it  follow 
that  He  is  restricted  to  these  inferior  agencies  from  employing 
other  ways  and  means  of  exercising  influence  on  the  world. 

Lastly,  it  is  true  that  God  has  vouchsafed  a  certain  relative 
independence  to  the  various  spheres  of  created  existence 


LECT.  III.] 


DEISM  AND  KATIONALISM. 


209 


through  the  laws  and  forces  implanted  in  them,  in  accordance 
with  which  they  pursue  their  constant  course  ;  but  these  forces 
and  laws  are  nevertheless  nothing  hut  a  constant  ontjioio  of  the 
divine  will,  and  cease  as  soon  as  the  latter  is  altered ;  hence 
the  subsistence  of  the  world  is  every  moment  unconditionally 
dependent  upon  God.  It  is  likewise  true,  in  respect  to  the 
rational  creation,  that  God  has  imposed  upon  His  operations  a 
limitation  of  His  'powers,  so  as  duly  to  maintain  the  freedom 
of  man,  and  therefore  that,  in  fact,  for  a  long  while  He  does 
not  interpose,  but  quiescently  looks  on  and  waits,  allowing  us 
to  dispose  of  matters  just  as  if  we  were  completely  “  our  own 
masters.”  But  all  this  is  nothing  more  than  His  patience  and 
long-suffering.  His  wise  remission,  in  which,  however,  He  is 
never  inactive,  but  is  only  making  His  preparations  in  secret  for 
a  subsequent  intervention.  But  from  this  attribute  of  God  it 
does  not  follow  that  He  does  not  trouble  Himself  about  us,  or 
that  there  is  no  special  providence  on  His  part,  but  only  that 
our  freedom  is  a  fact,  and  not  a  sham  ! 

Hence,  when  Deism  one-sidedly  overstrains  the  points  of 
truth  contained  in  it,  by  condemning  God  to  inaction  as 
regards  the  world,  and  by  utterly  severing  the  world  from 
God,  Pantheism,  on  the  other  hand,  maintains  against  it  its 
special  truth,  that  God  is  omnipresent,  and  constantly  active 
everywhere  in  the  world ;  just  as,  conversely,  against  the  one¬ 
sidedness  of  Pantheism,  which  would  blend  Him  entirely  with 
the  world.  Deism  justly  maintains  its  theory  of  a  separation  of 
God,  as  a  personal  Being  and  Will,  from  the  world.  Pantheism 
and  Deism  bear,  therefore,  such  a  relation  to  one  another,  that 
what  is  false  and  one-sided  in  either  system  is  annihilated  by 
the  other,  and  what  is  true  has  its  deficiencies  supplied.  Let 
us  abandon  the  false  and  cleave  to  the  true.  If  we  adopt 
from  Pantheism  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  activity  and 
immanence  within  the  world,  and  from  Deism  that  of  God’s 
supramundane  position  and  separate  Personality,  we  shall  have 
a  near  approach  to  the  teaching  of  Holy  Scripture. 


0 


LECTUEE  IV. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCRIPTURE  AND  OF  THE  CHURCH. 
ITHERTO  we  have  followed  out  one  by  one  the  various 


JLJ-  non-scriptural  conceptions  of  the  divine  nature,  and 
endeavoured  to  exhibit  their  untenableness  from  a  scientific 
-  point  of  view,  without  at  the  same  time  closing  our  eyes 
to  the  scattered  elements  of  truth  which  are  nevertheless 


enshrined  within  them.  We  now  turn  to  the  Biblico-Christian 


conception  as  to  that  which  alone  is  fundamentally  true  and 
scientifically  tenable.  In  order  to  present  it,  we  have  only 
to  gather  up  the  various  threads  of  our  previous  argument. 
The  truth  of  the  scriptural  conception  of  the  nature  of  God  is 
evident  from  this,  that  while  it  excludes  all  that  in  tho^e  other 
conceptions  we  have  recognised  as  false  and  negative,  it  combines 
in  a  living  %inity  all  their  scattered  elements  of  positive  tnith. 
In  doing  this  we  shall  have  to  solve  a  twofold  problem ;  first, 
to  exhibit  in  general  terms  the  fundamental  scriptural  concep¬ 
tion  of  the  divine  nature,  i.e.  Biblical  Theism,  and  establish 
the  truth  of  its  various  Principles ;  and  then  to  justify  its  full 
development  in  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  the 
deepest,  highest,  perfectest  presentation  of  the  Idea  of  God. 


I. - BIBLICAL  THEISM. 


The  teaching  of  Scripture  concerning  God  is  based  on  the 
theistic  conception,  that,  namely,  which  holds  fast  at  once  His 
supramundane  and  His  intramundane  character ;  the  one  in 
virtue  of  His  nature  and  essence,  the  other  of  His  will  and 
power.  Eor  while  Theism,  on  the  one  hand,  regards  the  Theos 
(God)  as  a  personal  Being,  and  so  as  essentially  distinct  from 
the  whole  created  universe  and  from  man,  it  is  no  less  careful, 
on  the  other  hand,  to  present  Him  as  the  ever-living  .and 


210 


LECT.  IV.] 


BIBLICAL  THEISM. 


211 


working  One  in  His  immediate  personal  relationship  to  man 
and  the  universe  by  the  doctrine  of  a  universal  Divine  Provi¬ 
dence.  This  view  of  the  divine  nature  is  virtually  expressed 
in  the  first  verse,  of  the  Bible :  In  the  leginning  God  created 
the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and  in  the  fundamental  article  of 
the  Apostles’  Creed :  I  helieve  in  God,  the  Father  Almighty, 
Maher  of  heaven  and  earth.  Let  me  now  briefly  endeavour  to 
show  you  how  this  and  other  definitions  of  Holy  Scripture 
exclude  what  is  false  in  those  conceptions  of  God  and  the 
universe  which  we  have  been  examining. 

And  first,  against  Atheism,  which  we  need  scarcely  mention, 
Scripture  here,  as  everywhere,  teaches  an  eternally  existing 
unbeginning  God,  from  whose  creative  activity  heaven  and 
earth  and  time  itself  took  their  beginning, — an  absolute  self- 
existent  One,  who  saith,  I  am  that  I  am,  having  in  Himself 
the  ground  of  His  own  being, — the  unchangeable,  ever-living 
One,  who  “  hath  life  in  Himself,  and  therefore  hath  given  to 
the  Son  to  have  life  in  Himself”  (St.  John  v.  26);  “who  is, 
and  who  was,  and  who  is  to  come”  (Pev.  i.  4,  8). 

Against  Materialism  we  find  a  protest  in  the  first  sentence 
of  the  Bible.  Mcdter  is  not  eterned.  It  had  a  beginning  along 
with  time ;  heaven  and  earth  were  created  in  that  beginning. 
Matter,  therefore,  cannot  itself  be  God,  but  came  into  exist¬ 
ence  through  an  act  of  His  will.  And  He  is  distinguished 
from  it  not  only  by  priority  of  existence,  but  difference  of 
nature.  “  God  is  a  Spirit”  (St.  John  iv.  24),  that  is,  a  thinh- 
ing  Being:  e.g.  “Thy  thoughts  are  very  deep”  (Ps.  xcii.  6); 
and  “  of  His  wise  thinking  there  is  no  end  ”  (literal  rendering 
of  Ps.  cxlvii.  5). 

In  like  manner  we  find  in  those  first  words  of  Scripture  a 
protest  against  Pantheism,  with  its  confusion  of  God  and 
world,  and  its  assumption  of  the  identity  of  essence  in  both. 
God  is  both  antemundane  and  supramundaue,  and  as  to  His 
essence  distinct  and  separate  from  the  world,  and  existing 
independently  of  it :  “  In  the  leginning  God  created — heaven 
and  earth.”  God  is — is  absolutely  and  without  beginning; 
the  world  is  brought  into  existence,  and  is  dejDendent  on 
its  Creator,  not  He  on  it.  Moreover,  it  comes  into  existence 
through  Him,  but  not  from  Him.  Every  theory  of  emanation 
wliich  would  make  the  world,  in  whatever  form,  old  Indian 


212 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCRIPTURE. 


[lect.  it. 


or  modern,  pantheistic,  an  efflux  from  the  Divine  Essence,  is 
from  the  first  excluded  by  the  word  “  created,”  which  simply 
expresses  the  fact  that  the  world’s  origin  is  derived  not  from 
the  essence,  but  from  the  will  of  its  Creator  that  its  produc¬ 
tion  was  not  a  necessity,  but  a  free  act  on  God’s  part,  who  is 
therefore  to  be  distinguished  and  separated  from  the  world  as 
a  living,  thinking,  willing,  and  personal  Being.  Throughout 
Scripture  God  speaks  as  a  person — I — who  does  not,  as  Hegel 
thought,  attain  to  self  consciousness  in  the  human  spirit,  but 
has  possessed  it  independently  from  the  beginning.  So  little, 
according  to  Scripture,  is  God  from  us,  that  we  are  rather 
from  Him.  He  is  not  a  mere  Idea,  but  Personality  itself, 
absolute  Freedom,  and  the  highest  Self-consciousness, — the  pro¬ 
totype  of  all  other  Self-consciousness,  all  other  Personality, — 
that  which  alone  and  eternally  is,  which  we  are  always  becom¬ 
ing,  who  is  before  and  above  all,  and  from  whom  our  own  per¬ 
sonality  is  derived  (Gen.  ii.  7 ;  Eph.  iv.  6).  Whereas  modern 
Pantheism  affirms,  in  words  which  a  well-known  professor 
inscribed  under  his  own  portrait,  “  Our  God  is  an  immanent 
God,  and  His  true  spirit  is  the  human  spirit”  the  God  of 
Holy  Scripture  says  of  Himself,  “  My  thoughts  are  not  as  your 
thoughts”  (Isa.  Iv.  8) :  His  Spirit,  therefore,  is  not  our  spirit. 
His  Spirit  searches  out  our  spirit.  His  thoughts  comprehend 
our  thoughts :  Thou  scarchest  me  out  and  hnoioest  me :  Thou 
understandest  my  thoughts  afar  off  (Ps.  cxxxix.).  The  Lord 
knoweth  the  thoughts  of  man  (Ps.  xciv.  11  et  passim).  He  is 
fully  conscious  of  all  His  own  thoughts  and  works :  “  I  know 
the  thoughts  which  I  think  toward  youf  saith  the  Lord  ( J er. 
xxix.  1 1).  “  Known  unto  God  are  all  His  loorks  from  the  he- 

ginning  of  the  world”  (Acts  xv.  18).  Even  in  holding  com¬ 
munion  wdth  man  through  His  Spirit,  He  does  not  confound 
His  Consciousness  with  ours :  “  The  Spirit  (of  God)  beareth 
witness  to  our  spirit”  (Eom.  viii.  16). 

Finally,  against  the  false  deistie  and  rationalistic  separation 
between  God  and  world.  Holy  Scripture  makes  like  protest  in 
that  same  opening  sentence,  which  declares  the  dependence  of 
the  world  in  both  its  parts  (heaven  and  earth)  on  the  will  of 
Him  who  called  it  into  being.  The  same  is  also  indicated  in 
the  divine  names  most  commonly  used  in  Scripture,  expressive 
of  divine  power  and  might  {Elohim,  El,  Eloah),  as  well  as  of 


LECT.  IV.] 


BIBLICAL  THEISM. 


213 


lordship  and  dominion  {Adon,  Adonai),  and  indicating  at  once 
the  essential  nnity  of  God  in  opposition  to  Polytheism  (Dent, 
vi.  4)  and  His  fulness  of  living  energies  :  hence  the  plural 
form  of  the  divine  name  Elohim,  used  ordinarily  when  refer¬ 
ence  is  made  to  the  Divine  Activity  in  the  creation,  preserva¬ 
tion,  and  providential  government  of  the  M'orld  in  general. 
God  (it  tells  us)  makes  Himself  seen  and  felt  by  us,  both  in 
the  universe  as  a  whole  and  in  its  smallest  details,  as  the 
absolutely  simple  and  yet  complex  Life.  He  is,  therefore,  in 
the  highest  sense  the  living  One  and  the  living  Agency,  which 
not  only  created  the  wmrld,  but  also  continuously  upholds  and 
maintains  it :  who,  “  upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of 
His  power  ”  (Heh.  i.  3),  and  in  His  omnipresence  pervading 
eveiything,  “giveth  to  all  life,  and  breath,  and  all  things” 
(Acts  xvii.  25).  So  much,  too,  is  He  needed  by  the  world  at 
every  moment  of  its  existence,  that  all  life  would  cease  were 
His  influence  withdrawn  :  “  Thou  hidest  Thy  face,  they  are 
troubled  :  Thou  takest  away  their  breath,  they  die,  and  return 
to  their  dust”  (Ps.  civ.  29).  Whereas  Deism  asserts  that  the 
Creator  has  withdrawn  Himself  from  His  work,  and  is  now  far 
removed  from  the  world  ;  the  Scriptures  say  :  “  He  is  not  far 
from  every  one  of  us :  for  in  Him  we  live,  and  move,  and 
have  our  being”  (Acts  xvii.  27,  28).  He  is  not  merely  the 
Creator  of  ourselves,  hut  also,  in  one  point  of  vieAv,  of  our 
actions  (Ps.  cxxxix.  5) :  He  is  the  Kuler  of  hearts,  who 
“  worketh  in  us  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  His  good  pleasure  ” 
(Phil.  ii.  13).  Whereas  the  deist  is  of  opinion  that  the  pro¬ 
vidence  of  God  extends  to  the  world  only  as  a  whole,  and  to 
matters  great  and  universal,  the  God  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
on  the  contrary,  “  beholdeth  all  the  sons  of  men  and  con- 
sidereth  all  their  Avorks  ”  (Ps.  xxxiii.  13,  15);  He  is  the 
keeper  of  men,  Avho  neither  slumbers  nor  sleeps,  who  marks 
every  sigh,  and  numbers  the  hairs  of  our  heads ;  nor  permits 
even  a  sparrow  to  fall  to  the  ground  without  the  Avill  of  Him 
Avhose  providence  extends  to  the  smallest  things. 

All  these  attributes  follow  still  more  clearly  from  the  name 
“  Jehovah.”  ^  Just  as  the  general  activity  of  God  in  the  Avoiid 

*  In  the  Authorized  Version,  almost  invariably  rendered  by  “the  LOUD.’' 
The  capitals  serve  to  distinguish  the  translation  of  “Jehovah”  from  that  of 
“  Adonai,”  which  is  also  rendered  “  Lord,”  but  printed  small. 


214 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  BCRIPTUHE. 


[lect.  IV._ 


is  referred  to  EloMm,  so  almost  without  exception  every  divine 
action  which  relates  to  the  theocratic  revelation  is  ascribed  to 
Jehovah.  He  is  the  covenant-God  of  Israel  who  reveals  Him¬ 
self  specially  to  His  people.  In  Ex.  iii.  13—15,  the  name  is 
explained :  “  I  am  that  I  am,” — the  absolutely  inde;pendent 
and  self-existing  One,  who  progressively  shows  and  reveals 
Himself  as  God,  in  the  constancy  of  His  being,  knowledge, 
will,  and  power, — who  is  the  Eirst  and  the  Last  throughout 
all  epochs  of  revelation, — who  was,  and  is,  and  is  to  come.  He 
is,  therefore,  not  merely  the  One  who  without  beginning  or 
end  is  all-sufficient  in  Himself,  the  causa  sui  who  acts  from 
His  own  freewill,  and  is  absolutely  self-controlled  ;  but  He 
also  continues  to  be  for  His  people  that  which  from  the  begin¬ 
ning  He  showed  Himself  to  be,  and  fulfils  everything  which 
He  either  promises  or -threatens.  Hence  He  is  the  faithful 
and  true  God  (Ps.  xxxiii.  4;  Hum.  xxiii.  19),  who  is  a  firm 
Defence  and  Ptock  to  all  that  put  their  trust  in  Him  (Ps.  xviii. 
2,  3  ;  Isa.  xxvi.  3,  4  ;  Deut.  vii.  9,  10  ;  Josh,  xxiii.  14,  16  ; 
1  Kings  viii.  56  ;  2  Kings  x.  10).  This  eternally  living,  one 
Lord,  though  as  “the  Holy  One  of  Israel”  (Ps.  Ixxi.  22, 
Ixxxix.  1 9  ;  Isa.  i.  4)  Lie  must  necessarily  be  separate  from  all 
that  is  finite  and  impure,  yet  cannot  and  may  not,  in  this  very 
capacity,  hold  aloof  from  human  affairs,  or  look  on  without 
concern  at  the  development  of  the  world.  On  the  contrary, 
He  guides  it,  both  as  a  whole  and  in  detail,  according  to  His 
holy  aims  and  purposes,  and  under  the  revealing  aspect  of  His 
nature  Himself  enters  into  the  growing  development  of  things, 
in  order  to  lead  it  on,  by  a  free  and  independent,  but  ever 
consistent  guidance,  to  the  destiny  which  He  has  marked 
out. 

Thus  the  mere  name  of  Jehovah  is  in  itself  a  refutation  of 
Deism.  The  latter  asserts  tliat  God  worked  on  one  occasion 
only, — in  the  creation, — and  that  since  then  the  world  has 
spontaneously  followed  its  own  course  ;  but  Christ  says,  “  My 
Leather  ivorheth  hitherto,  and  I  work :  the  Son  can  do  nothin" 
of  Himself,  but  what  He  seeth  the  Father  do :  for  what  things 
soever  He  doeth,  these  also  cloeth  the  Son  likewise  ”  (John  v. 
17,  19).  Deism  asserts  in  regard  to  its  God,  that  miracles  are 
a  matter  of  impossibility  to  him ;  but  the  Scriptures  say  of  the 
Christian’s  God,  “With  God  nothing  shall  be  impossible” 


LECT.  IV.] 


BIBLICAL  THEISM. 


215 


(Liike  i.  37).  Deism  affirms  that  God  cannot  manifest  and 
communicate  Himself  in  special,  supernatural  modes ;  but  the 
Scriptures,  on  ..the  contrary,  teach  us  that  “  God,  who  at  sundry 
times,  and  in  divers  manners,  spake  in  time  past  unto  the 
fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us 
by  His  Son  ”  (Heb.  i.  1  ffi).  The  Scriptures  represent  God  as 
One  who  is  love,  and  must  therefore  continuously  communicate 
Himself ;  who  also  has  gradually  revealed  Himself  more  and 
more  clearly  and  completely,  till  at  length  in  Christ  His  entire 
fulness  appeared  ;  and  who  even  now,  by  means  of  His  Spirit, 
makes  Himself  recognised,  felt,  and  enjoyed.  In  short,  they 
tell  of  Him  as  One  who  in  a  thousand  ways  every  moment 
places  Himself  in  mutual  relationship  and  active  communica¬ 
tion  w’ith  man ;  who  lives  and  rules  not  merely  above,  but  in  the 
world  ;  from  whose  throne  the  current  of  life  flows  down  to  all 
creation,  and  lightnings,  thunders,  and  voices  go  forth  in  every 
direction  (I’ev.  iv.  5,  xi.  19). 

This  is  the  living,  personal,  all-working  God  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  whose  active  influence  is  omnipresent  in  the  world, 
and  yet,  as  the  one  free  and  independent  Being,  is  enthroned 
in  eternal  majesty  above  it.  From  beginning  to  end— that  is, 
from  its  origin  in  England  in  the  l7th  century  down  to  its 
rationalistic  scions  of  the  present  day — the  whole  tendency  of 
Deism  has  been  directed  towards  a  severance  between  God  and 
the  world ;  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  on  the  other  hand,  from 
first  to  last  the  holy  God  is  represented  as  taking  care  to  con¬ 
nect  Himself  in  mercy  and  judgment  more  and  more  profoundly, 
pervadingly,  and  condescendingly,  wuth  the  world  and  wuth 
man  (Hos.  ii.  19,  20).  From  the  movement  of  the  Spirit  of 
God  on  the  face  of  the  primeval  wmters  (Gen.  i.  2),  down  to 
the  dwelling  of  God  amongst  men  in  the  new  Jerusalem  (llev. 
xxi.  3  11.),  the  life  from  God  seeks  to  naturalize  itself  more  and 
more  completely  on  earth,  and  this  is  done  through  Him  in 
whom  an  eternal,  indissoluble,  and  personal  bond  of  union 
between  God  and  man  has  been  cemented  through  Christ  and 
His  Holy  Spirit. 

From  the  foregoing  it  will  be  evident  that  we  were 
thoroughly  justified  in  applying  the  term  non-biblical  to  those 
other  conceptions  of  God  ;  and  likewise,  that  the  false  elements 
which  we  recognised  in  Pantheism  and  Deism, — viz.  in  the  one, 


216 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCRIPTUEE, 


[lECT.  IV. 


tlie  blending  together  of  God  and  the  world ;  and  in  the  other, 
their  entire  separation, — are  excluded  by  the  biblical  concep¬ 
tion  of  God.  \/^ 

Let  us,  however,  now  observe  how  the  scattered  sparks  of 
truth  lohich  scintillate  amid  the  darkness  of  the  other  ideas  of 
God,  shine  forth  together  as  one  elcar  light  in  the  view  taken  of 
Him  in  the  Bible. 

Atheism,  which  certainly  is  falsehood  itself,  and  therefore 
does  not  contain  one  single  spark  of  truth,  rests  upon  the 
arQ:ument  that  nothing  is  to  be  seen  of  God.  According  to 
the  Scriptures,  God  is  really  the  invisible  One  (1  Tim.  i.  17  ; 
John  i.  18).  So  far,  however,  from  this  attribute  diminish¬ 
ing  the  reality  of  His  being,  it  is  precisely  that  which  certifies 
to  His  true,  eternal  existence ;  “  for  the  things  which  are 
seen  are  temporal,  but  the  things  which  are  not  seen  are 
eternal”  (2  Cor.  iv.  18).  The  invisibility  of  God  is  not  a 
defect,  but  a  prerogative.  For,  in  respect  of  His  essence, 
God  is  so  absolutely  exalted  above  everything  that  is  created 
and  visible,  that  He  cannot  manifest  Himself  directhj  to  the 
creature,  but  only  in  some  shape  which  has  a  certain  affinity 
to  it. 

Materialism  identifies  God  with  nature  and  with  matter.  It 
lays-  stress,  as  we  saw  above,  not  altogether  unjustly,  on  the 
element  in  the  being  and  working  of  the  Spirit  which  is  allied 
to,  and  interwoven  with,  nature.  This  aspect  of  the  truth  also 
receives  its  full  due  in  the  biblical  view  of  God.  According 
to  it,  although  God  is  Spirit,  He  has  nevertheless  a  nature, 
which  we  may  term  substanticd,  but  not  material.  It  is  desig¬ 
nated  as  light  and  fire:  “We  declare  unto  you,  that  God  is 
light “  Who  coverest  Thyself  with  light  as  with  a  garment,” 
etc.  (1  John  i.  5  ;  Eev.  xxi.  23  ;  Ps.  civ.  2  ;  1  Tim.  vi.  16)  ; 
“  Our  God  is  a  consuming  fire “a  fire  goeth  before  Him,”  etc. 
(Deut.  iv.  24,  ix.  3  ;  Heb.  xii.  29  ;  Isa  x.  17  ;  Ps.  xcvii.  3  ;  cf. 
also  the  visions  of  the  prophets).  However,  this  element  of 
light  in  God’s  nature  does  not  exclude  its  spirituality,  but 
plainly  indicates  it. 

The  truth  in  Pantheism  is  the  assertion  that  God  is  omnU 
present  and  universally  active  in  the  world.  We  have  already 
seen  that  these  attributes  are  assigned  to  God  by  the  Holy 
Scriptures  everywhere,  and  with  full  emphasis.  They  entirely 


LECT.  IV.] 


BIBLICAL  THEISM. 


217 


separate  God  from  the  world  as  regards  His  nature,  but  most 
closely  connect  Him  with  it  as  regards  His  will  and  His 
action.  The  Scriptures  cannot  at  all  imagine  the  life  of  the 
world  without  the  animating  presence  of  God  in  it.  As  an 
infinite  Being,  far  exalted  above  all  limits  either  of  time  or 
space,  God  is  near  to  every  being  in  every  place,  and  that  not 
as  a  mere  idle  looker-on,  but  quickening  and  maintaining, 
helping  and  directing  it  with  His  full  power  and  activity  (1 
Kings  viii.  27  ;  Amos  ix.  6  ;  Isa.  Ixvi.  1  ;  Jer.  xxiii.  24  ;  Ps. 
cxxxix.  7,  10,  cv.  7  ;  Matt,  xxviii.  20;  Eph.  i.  23).  But 
although  pervading  everything,  and  in  everything,  yet  at  the 
same  time  He  is  above  everything  (Eph.  iv.  6).  Biblical 
Monotheism  does  not,  therefore,  at  all  require  the  aid  of 
Pantheism  in  order  to  maintain  a  constant,  living  relation 
between  God  and  the  world.  The  Bible  teaches  that  God  is 
the  fulpess  of  all  life,  and  therefore  recognises  a  veritable  pre¬ 
sence  of  God  in  all  forms  of  the  world’s  life  ;  so  that  as 
regards  the  fulness,  multifariousness,  and  intimacy  of  the 
divine  presence,  it  falls  short  neither  of  Pantheism  nor  of 
Polytheism.  Eurther,  Pantheism  fears  lest  the  idea  of  per¬ 
sonality  should  involve  a  restriction  in  the  being  of  God;  and, 
as  we  have  previously  seen,  there  is  truth  in  this  idea  to  the 
extent  that  God  cannot  be  conceived  as  a  dngle  Person.  He 
would  thus  be  degraded  to  the  level  of  other  personalities. 
But  Holy  Scripture  also  considers  Him  not  as  a  single  Person, 
but  as  absolute  Personality,  which  is  neither  limited  nor 
restricted  by  anything  else ;  which  is  not  a  numerical  One 
beside  other  single  beings,  but  is  both  Unity  and  Plurality  at 
once,  i.e.  a  triune  Being.  Thus,  as  we  shall  subsequently  see, 
room  is  left  for  the  infinite  fulness  of  life  in  God :  and  yet  the 
great ,  prerogative  of  personality  is  firmly  maintained.  Thus, 
moreover,  full  justice  is  done  to  the  truth  involved  in 
Polytheism,  viz.  that  plurality  is  an  elementary  form  of  being, 
and  therefore  must  be  derivable  from  God.  Pantheism  like¬ 
wise  demands,  not  without  reason,  that  a  self-conscious  God 
must  from  all  eternity  have  had  an  object  which  might  reflect 
His  consciousness  back  into  itself';  but  according  to  the 
biblico-Christian  view,  God  has  an  object  of  this  kind,  exist¬ 
ing  from  all  eternity,  in  the  distinction  between  the  Persons 
of  the  Trinity  in  His  own  being,~an  object  which  renders  it 


218 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCRIPTUEE. 


[LECT.  IV. 


superfluous  to  suppose  that  the  world  existed  from  everlasting. 
Because  He  is  ahsolute  Personality,  He  does  not  exist,  or  come 
into  existence,  in  or  through  anything  else,  nor  does  He  only 
receive  His  self-consciousness  through  something  which  en¬ 
counters  Him,  and  causes  Him  to  revert  upon  Himself;  but 
He  derives  it  from  Himself,  and  it  flows  to  Him  out  of  His 
own  essence.  For  He  is  not  merely  I,  but  also  constitutes 
Himself  as  He, ;  hence  He  can  say  of  Himself,  “  I  am  He  ” 
(Deut.  xxxii.  39  ;  Isa.  xli.  4,  xliii.  10, 13,  25,  xlviii.  12).  Fie 
is  in  Himself  both  subject  and  object. 

The  elements  of  truth  contained  in  Deism  and  Rationalism 
we  found  to  be  that  God  is  a  personal  Being,  and,  as  the 
Creator  of  the  v^orld,  must  be  conceived  as  separate  from  it ; 
further,  that  His  interposition  in  the  world  is  not  of  an 
arbitrary  character  calculated  to  disturb  its  order,  but  avails 
itself  of  the  forces  and  laws  implanted  therein  ;  also,  that  God, 
in  His  holy  patience,  even  imposes  upon  Himself  a  certain 
self-limitation  in  respect^  of  human  freedom.  These  truths, 
likewise,  have  due  importance  accorded  to  them  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  For  the  all-guiding  and  all- watching  God  of  the 
Bible,  and  none  other,  is  a  God  of  order  (1  Cor.  xiv.  33).  The 
entire  history  of  Flis  holy  rule  over  the  world,  as  related  to  us 
in  Scripture,  is  a  proof  of  this.  But  this  order  not  only  does 
not  render  the  providence  of  God  in  individual  cases  super¬ 
fluous,  but  directly  requires  it.  Again,  even  when  Deism  goes 
too  far  in  exalting  God  above  the  world,  in  order  not  to 
degrade  Him  by  mixing  Him  up  with  the  finite  and  with  the 
changes  and  chances  of  the  world,  this  idea  contains  a  two¬ 
fold  element  of  truth ; — first,  the  separation  of  God  from  all 
that  is  impure.  His  holiness  and  inconi'parahleness ;  and  next. 
His  eternal  immutability  and  constant  conformity  luith  Himself. 
But  what  can  set  forth  these  attributes  of  God  more  promi¬ 
nently  than  do  the  Scriptures  ?  According  to  them,  God  is  in 
His  inmost  nature  the  only  holy  One,  who,  being  strictly 
severed  from  all  that  is  impure,  and  unaffected  by  all  the 
infirmities  of  finite  beings,  is  supernaturally  exalted  above  all 
their  limitations.  He  is  purity  itself,  and  keeps  far  from  Him 
everything  that  is  opposed  to  His  nature  (Lev.  xi.  44,  45, 
xix.  2;  Ps.  xxii.  4;  Isa.  vi.  3,  liv.  5;  John  xvii.  11;  Eev. 
XV.  4),  because  He  is  the  incomparable  One  (Isa.  xl.  25, 


LECT.  IV.] 


BIBLICAL  THEISM. 


210 


xlvi.  5).  And  so,  too,  He  is  the  immutable  One.  Tor 
whereas  all  the  gods  of  polytheistic  religions  have  a  history 
full  of  personal  events,  changes,  metamorphoses,  and  adven¬ 
tures,  and  the  sacred  writings  of  the  heathen  are  mere  collec¬ 
tions  of  divine  biographies,  the  God  of  the  Bible  has  no 
biography  and  no  personal  adventures  whatever.  He  is  ever 
and  unchangeably  the  same,  because  He  is  the  only  veritable 
self -existent  Being,  and  not  a  being  Ironght  into  cxistc7ice.  His 
j)eculiar  nature  also  defines  His  relation  to  the  world — “  I  am 
that  I  am;”  “Thou  art  the  same”  (Ps.  cii.  27);  “I  am  the 
Lord ;  I  change  not  ”  (Mai.  iii.  6) ;  “  With  whom  is  no 
variableness”  (Jas.  i.  17  ;  cf.  Heb.  xiii.  8). 

Thus,  in  the  biblico-Christian  conception  of  God,  all  the 
separate  sparks  of  truth  are  concentrated,  as  it  were,  in  a 
focus.  It  combines  God’s  personality  and  independence.  His 
connection  with  nature  and  capability  of  being  known.  His 
omnipresence  and  omnipotence.  His  invisibility,  incomparable¬ 
ness,  and  immutability.  His  supramundane  and  yet  intra- 
mundane  existence ;  and,  we  may  also  add,  everything  which 
reason  and  conscience  can,  by  means  of  natural  knowledge, 
unveil  of  God’s  omnipotence,  goodness,  wisdom,  and  holiness, 
indeed,  even  all  the  true  elements  which  are  contained  in  the 
heathen  conceptions  of  God,  of  His  miracles  and  manifesta¬ 
tions,  His  inspirations  and  incarnations.  If  one-sidedly  main¬ 
tained,  these  several  elements  of  truth  lead  to  a  distorted  and 
mistaken  view  of  God ;  but  if  united,  each  one  cheeJes  any 
undue  prominence  of  the  other,  and  so  all  contribute  towards 
the  perfect  truth,  rationality,  and  beauty  of  the  biblical  concep¬ 
tion  of  God. 

Allow  me  to  lay  tliis  before  you  more  in  detail. 

{a)  The  intrinsic  truth  of  the  biblical  idea  of  God  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  it  alone  affords  the  possibility  of  conceiving 
God  as  tiie  entirely  perfect,  the  tndy  absolute  Being.  Ho  con¬ 
ception  of  God  can  be  the  true  one  which  does  not  include 
every  perfection.  But  in  all  the  other  ideas  of  God  there  is 
something  essential  wanting;  at  one  time  His  spirituality 
(Materialism),  or  even  His  existence  (Atheism),  so  again  His 
consciousness  (Pantheism),  or  His  constant  living  activity 
(Deism).  From  the  biblical  point  of  view,  however,  God  is 
made  to  possess  all  these  attributes,  and  to  possess  them  in 


220 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCIHPTUHE. 


[LECT.  IV. 


the  very;  highest  degree — being  and  life,  spirituality  and 
omnipotence,  consciousness  and  tliought,  will  and  freedom, 
and,  in  addition,  a  constant  living  and  holy  activity  in  the 
entire  universe.  Here  alone  He  possesses  both  Himself  and 
the  world,  and  is  absolutely  the  Lord,  who  rules  everything 
according  to  His  holy  aims,  and  guides  free  spirits  according 
to  free  moral  laws  ;  here  alone  does  He  possess  every  physical 
and  moral  perfection,  and  become  "  God,''  that  is,  entirely  and 
thoroughly  good,  as  our  Teutonic  speech  strikingly  points  out. 
Therefore  in  this  vino  only  is  the  conception  of  the  Absolute  com¬ 
pletely  realized.  For  God  must  needs  determine  and  condition 
everything.  But  for  this  end  it  is  necessary  that  He  should  be 
absolutely  good  and  absolutely  free.  These  two  attributes  are 
combined  only  in  the  God  of  Scripture, — the  holy,  and  there¬ 
fore  also  the  free  God,  who  does  what  pleases  Him,  whose 
will  no  one  can  gainsay  (Eom.  ix.  19);  whereas  the  Cxod  of 
Pantheism  is  neither  good  nor  free,  and  the  God  ot  Deism  is 
at  all  events  not  free,  and  in  reality  not  perfectly  good. 

Moreover,  the  true  principle  of  all  being  can  evidently  be 
only  that  from  which  everything  thcd  is  may  be  derived.  Apart 
from  the  moral  sphere,  God  must  be  the  unity  of  all  antitheses. 
This  He  is  only  according  to  the  Christian  conception,  because 
this  alone  makes  Him  truly  absolute.  We  can  trace  back  to 
the  almighty  One  all  that  is  created,  to  the  living  One  all 
that  lives,  to  the  self-conscious  Spirit  all  the  spiritually 
rational  and  personal  life  in  the  world.  Here  we  see  God  as 
one,  and  yet  containing  in  Himself  the  principle  of  multi¬ 
plicity  ;  pervading  everything,  and  yet  above  all ;  capable  of 
being  known,  and  yet  unsearchable ;  condescending  to  the 
lowest  depths,  and  yet  enthroned  in  unattainable  sublimity ; 
eternally  near,  and  yet  eternally  far  off 

Again,  must  not  that  be  the  truest  idea  of  God  wEich 
affords  the  deepest  satisfaction  to  the  religious  need  of  man  t 
This,  as  we  have  seen,  tends  to  a  complete  union  of  the 
God-seeking  soul  with  its  Creator,  and  to  its  being  pervaded, 
filled,  and  blessed  by  Him.  This,  according  to  Scripture,  is 
the  aim  and  conclusion  of  the  whole  revelation  and  world 
government  of  God  and  Christ,  “  that  God  may  be  all  in 
all”  (1  Cor.  XV.  28).  Once  more,  we  must  aver  that  this 
consummation  of  the  Avorld’s  development  is  unattainable 


LECT.  IV.] 


BIBLICAL  THEISM. 


221 


except  under  the  presupposition  of  the  biblical  idea  of  God. 
Neither  the  impersonal  mundane  soul  of  Pantheism,  which 
destroys  the  higher  self-conscious  life  as  soon  as  it  takes  it 
back  again  into  itself;  nor  yet  the  deistical  God  who  abides 
outside  the  life  of  the  world,  and  therefore  does  not  communi¬ 
cate  Himself  to  individual  souls,  can  ever  be  “  all  in  all,”  and 
thus  fully  satisfy  the  religious  need  of  man.  Only  the  God 
of  Scripture  can  do  this.  And  why  ?  Because  He  is  the 
perfect  Spirit  and  perfect  love,  or,  combining  both  attributes 
in  one,  the  Father. 

Here  we  have  before  us  the  most  profound  definition  of 
Scripture  as  to  the  nature  of  God,  per  se  definitions  to  the 
sublimity  of  which  the  presentiments  and  longings  of  no 
heathen  people  ever  rose,  although  the  truth  of  them  directly 
forces  itself  on  the  reason  and  the  conscience.  God  is  sjoirit 
(Job  iv.  24,  not  “a  spirit”).  Man  has  spirit,  God  is  spirit. 
In  Him  the  spirit  does  not  form  merely  a  portion  of  His 
being ;  but  the  whole  substance  of  His  nature.  His  peculiar 
self,  is  spirit.  Here  we  have  the  idea  of  God  in  His  inner 
perfection,  just  as  the  names  Elohim  and  Jehovah  tell  us 
mainly  His  external  position.  As  spirit,  God  is  tlie  eternal, 
self-dependent  brightness  and  truth,  absolute  knowledge,  the 
intelligent  principle  of  all  forces  whose  glance  penetrates  into 
everything,  and  produces  light  and  truth  in  all  directions. 
Spirit !  how  much  food  for  thought  does  this  one  word  give  ! 
Do  we  not  feel  as  though  it  would  cut  asunder  the  hard  knot 
which  philosophy  has  placed  before  us  with  its  conceptions  of 
God,  so  laboriously  wrought  out,  so  artificially  combined,  and 
therefore  often  so  difficult  to  understand  ?  “  God  is  spirit.” 

Placing  these  simple  words  side  by  side  with  all  the  definitions 
of  ancient  and  modern  philosophers, — e.g.  that  God  is  the  univer¬ 
sal  relative  measure  of  the  world’s  becoming  (Heraclitus),  or  the 
indifference  of  the  real  and  ideal  (Schilling),  etc., — have  we  not 
even  in  the  profound  simplicity  of  the  biblical  doctrine  a  proof 
of  its  truth  ?  The  greatest  truths  are  always  those  very  ones 
which  are  the  most  surprisingly  simple  in  their  nature,  whilst 
tlmt  wliich  is  artificial,  contorted,  and  complicated,  is  in  most 
cases  only  half  true  or  entirely  false. 

How  clear  and  intelligible,  too,  do  all  the  other  attributes 
ascribed  to  God  in  Scripture  become,  when  cjonsidered  in 


222 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCRIPTURE. 


[lect.  IV. 


tlie  light  of  this  fundamental  definition  of  spirituality  !  When 
once  I  know  that  God  is  spirit,  I  can  much  more  readily  con¬ 
ceive  that  He  is  the  eternally  living  and  personal  One,  and  I 
can  even  forecast  that  this  spiritual  nature  of  fire  and  light 
may  he  the  basis  of  His  omnipresence!  omniscience,  and  omni¬ 
sapience,  as  well  as  of  His  omnipotence  and  glory,  Nay,  I 
can  more  readily  comprehend  those  attributes,  for  it  is  only 
as  spirit  that  they  can  appertain  to  Him.  And  conversely, 
when  once  the  point  is  settled  that  He,  as  the  most  per¬ 
fect  Being,  must  possess  all  these,  it  follows  that  He  must  be 
spirit.  This  definition,  therefore,  is  not  merely  a  truth,  hut  a 
necessity,  which  spontaneously  results  from  the  conception  of 
the  Absolute. 

The  same  is  made  clear  to  us  in  the  fundamental  tenet  of 
Scripture  as  to  the  moral  nature  of  God,  viz.  that  He  is  holy 
love.  As  spirituality  is  the  vital  foundation  of  His  physical 
and  intellectual  perfections,  so  holy  love  is  the  internal  basis 
of  all  His  moral  perfections,  and  a  necessary  deduction  from 
the  true  idea  of  the  Absolute.  Benign,  gracious,  merciful, 
long-suffering,  patient,  faithful,  true,  just,  and  whatever  other 
moral  beauty  may  he  ascribed  to  God  in  the  Scriptures,  all 
this  He  can  only  be  because  He  is  holy  (cf.  the  passages  above 
quoted),  and  because  He  is  love  (1  John  iv.  8,  16).  Bor  the 
same  reason  He  is  also  liqht,  in  which  there  is  no  darkness  at 
all  (1  John  i.  5).  Light  is  only  the  necessary  effulgence  of 
His  intrinsically  holy  nature  ;  for  the  moral  and  the  natural 
are  in  God  individually  one.  Truly  has  one  said  :  “  Holiness 
is  the  hidden  glory,  and  glory  the  manifested  holiness  of  God.” 
As  holy  love,  God  has  two  attributes:  He  is  distinctly 
rated,  as  we  have  seen,  from  all  that  is  either  internally  or 
externally  impure  and  base  (the  fundamental  conception  of 
holiness),  and  is  therefore  higher,  more  glorious,  and  more 
majestic  than  any  creature ;  at  the  same  time.  He  is  full  of 
the  most  tender  condescension  and — if  I  may  so  say — self- 
sacrifice  ;  in  infinite  compassion  imparting  Himself  to  the  world 
in  order  to  eradicate  from  it  sin  and  all  impurity,  and  to  render 
it  a  partaker  in  His  perf  ect  life  and  glory.  “  I  am  the  Lord  thy 
God,”  He  exclaims  to  His  people,  “  the  holy  One  of  Israel,  thy 
Saviour''  (Isa.  xliii.  3,  xlv.  15,  liv.  5;  John  hi.  16;  1  Tim, 
iv.  10),  etc. 


LECT.  IV.] 


BIBLICAL  TIIEISIM. 


223 


What  teaching  about  God  can  be  more  sublime  or  more 
adapted  to  the  yearnings  of  our  heart  than  this  ?  Where  do 
we  find  an  idea  of  God  which  satisfies  our  religious  need  so 
abundantly  as  the  truth  that  God  is  love  ?  Does  not  every 
heart  led  by  an  involuntary  bias  say  “  Yea  and  amen  ”  to 
this  ?  Does  not  this  idea  force  itself  directly  as  the  truth 
upon  all,  even  unbelievers  ?  Any  man  who,  even  in  the 
smallest  degree,  acknowledges  his  deepest  need,  will  lay  hold 
on  this  truth 'with  both  hands,  and  cry  out,  “  Yea,  this  is  God  ; 
and  He  must  be  this,  not  merely  on  His  own  behalf,  on  behalf 
of  His  moral  perfection  and  beauty,  but  for  my  sake  also,  if 
there  is  to  be  any  hope  for  me  ;  the  God  of  love  is  the  only 
God  who  can  satisfy  my  needs.”, 

Ho  less  comforting  is  the  name  of  Father,  as  applied  to 
God ;  and  following  from  the  twofold  conception  of  spirit  and 
love,  God  is  thus  called,  sometimes  in  His  cliaractor  of  uni¬ 
versal  originator  {e.g.  1  Cor.  viii.  6),  sometimes  in  the  special 
sense  of  begetting,  as  in  the  case  of  Christ  {e.g.  Ps.  ii.  7)  and 
the  regenerate  {e.g.  Jas.  i.  18),  but  specially  because  He  exer¬ 
cises  loving  care,  education,  and  providence.  The  former 
universal  relationship  is  the  groundwork  of  the  latter  more 
special  one.  This,  however,  we  do  not  find  only  in  the 
Hew  Testament,  but  also  in  the  Old  (Deut.  xxxii.  6  ;  Ps.  chi, 
13  ;  Isa.  lx.iii.  16,  Ixiv.  8  ;  Jer.  hi.  4,  19,  xxxi.  9  ;  Mai.  i.  6, 
ii.  10)  ;  although,  it  is  true,  the  full  depths  of  the  divine 
Fatherhood  are  first  revealed  to  us  in  the  former,  because 
the  relation  of  God  to  men  as  Father  was  perfectly  realized 
in  Christ  alone,  and  through  Him  was  brought  about  for 
the  whole  world.  This  name  points  out  His  dignity  no  less 
than  His  accessibility  and  condescension.  His  holy  prefigura¬ 
tion  of  us  no  less  than  His  love  and  care,  our  own  needy 
condition  no  less  than  our  honour  and  dignity,  as  children 
created  in  our  Father’s  image.  What  an  encouragement  and 
stimulus  for  a  human  heart, — how  much  that  excites  confidence, 
imposes  awe,  stimulates  the  conscience,  and  inspires  love  and 
hope, — what  a  sea  of  joy  and  bliss  there  is  in  that  one  name 
Father  !  “  All  our  other  knowledge  of  God  contains  nothing 

more  than  isolated  letters  and  syllables  of  this  one  Hame  ” 
(Tholuck).  We  Christians  possess  it  and  enjoy  it  in  its  fullest 
extent.  In  the  Avhole  range  of  heathen  piety  we  find  nothing 


224 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCEIPTUKE, 


[lect.  IV. 


but  distant  and  obscure  presentiments  of  the  heart’s-joy  which 
overwhelms  each  one  who,  in  the  fulness  of  his  soul,  can  cry, 
“Doubtless  Thou  art  our  Father  and  our  Eedeemer,  from 
everlasting  this  is  Thy  name  ”  (Isa.  Ixiii.  16);  who  can  call 
upon  his  God  by  all  tlie  glorious  names  which  the  Scriptures 
apply  to  Him,  —  Physician,  Stronghold,  Ptock  of  salvation, 
Pefuge  and  Confidence,  Shield  and  Buckler,  Light  and  Con¬ 
solation,  Shepherd  and  Helper,  Eedeemer  and  Saviour. 

Again,  I  ask,  is  there  any  idea  of  God  which  can  more 
thoroughly  satisfy  the  religious  need  of  a  human  heart  ?  In¬ 
deed,  in  view  of  this  name  of  God,  I  may  well  venture  to  ask 
every  one  who  rejects  the  biblical  idea  of  Him,  Hast  thou 
ever  earnestly  considered  its  depths,  in  devout  contemplation 
and  active  appropriation,  without  finding  full  satisfaction  in  it  ? 
Only  we  must  never  forget  that  the  truth  of  the  biblical  idea  of 
God  must  be  recognised  principally  by  'p&rsonal  experience.  The 
true  God  must  be  found  by  a  moral  search.  “  The  desire  to 
attain  to  God,  without  God,”  says  a  philosopher,  “  is  just  such 
another  feat  as  the  tempter  promised  to  teach  our  first  parents  • 
how,  in  opposition  to  God,  and  without  Him,  they  might  make 
themselves  equal  to  Him  ”  (Baader). 

Or  must  not  that  be  the  true  idea  of  God  by  which  I,  as  a 
sinful  being,  am  at  once  bowed  down  and  raised  vp ;  by  which 
I  am  made  to  feel  the  whole  weight  of  my  guilt,  and  yet  not 
to  despair,  but  to  hope  ;  by  which  I  am  shown  the  wide  gulf 
which  separates  me  from  God,  and  also  the  way  to  a  restora¬ 
tion  of  unity  with  Him  ?  And  what  else  in  this  respect  can 
compare  with  the  God  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  who  in  one 
breath  says  of  Himself,  “  I  dwell  in  the  high  and  holy  place, 
and  with  him  who  is  of  a  contrite  and  humble  spirit  ”  (Isa.  Ivii. 
15  ;  comp.  Ps.  cxvii.  5-7),  so  as  to  make  us  feel  at  once  His 
holy  distance  and  His  comforting  nearness  ;  or  again,  who,  wliilst 
asking  sin-burdened  Israel  whether  He  ought  not  justly  to 
make  them  like  unto  Sodom,  immediately  adds,  “  Mine  heart 
is  turned  within  me :  my  repentings  are  kindled  together  ” 
(Hos.  xi.  8)  ?  And  where  shall  we  find  the  way  to  a  restora¬ 
tion  of  union  with  God  brought  so  lovingly  before  the  fallen 
world  as  by  Him  who  proclaims,  “  God  so  loved  tlie  world 
that  He  gave  His  only-begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth 
in  Him  should  not  'perish,  but  have  everlasting  life”? 


LECT.  IV.] 


BIBLICAL  THEISM. 


225 


And  finally,  must  not  that  bs  the  true  idea  of  God  which 
does  the  most  to  elevate  man  morally,  to  ennoble,  to  spiritualize 
%  him,  and  to  render  him  like  God  ?  And  from  an  historical 
’point  of  view  we  ask.  Where  has  there  been  any  conception  of 
God  and  religion  which  has  so  much  elevated,  educated,  and 
enlightened  both  individuals  and  nations  as  the  biblico- 
Christian  conception  ?  Whence  may  we  expect  a  more 
powerful  moral  influence  than  from  the  worship  of  the  God 
who,  as  spirit,  desires  to  be  worshipped  only  in  spirit  and  in 
truth  ?  Where  is  there  a  more  forcible  stimulus  to  purity, 
both  of  heart  and  life,  than  is  found  in  the  worship  of  Him  of 
wdiom  it  is  written,  “  Holy,  holy,  holy.  Lord  God  of  Sabaoth 
and,  “  Be  ye  holy,  for  I  am  holy  ”  ?  And  place  side  by  side 
the  fact,  that  other  nations,  who  were  acouainted  with  none 
but  unholy  gods,  have,  through  their  worship,  sunk  into  an 
ever-deepening  moral  degradation,  which  could  not  be  averted 
even  through  the  influence  of  philosophy.  “  By  their  fruits 
ye  shall  know  them.”  And  indeed  the  truth  of  this  concep¬ 
tion  of  God  is  witnessed  not  merely  by  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
but  also  by  our  own  heart  and  conscience,  and  the  testimony  of 
innumerable  Christians,  who  have  recognised  it  in  their  personal 
experience,  and  have  given  incontestable  evidence  of  its  moral 
fruits  in  their  hearts  and  lives ;  and  the  whole  history  of  the 
world  and  its  civilisation  confirms  it ! 

(Ij)  Hor  does  reason  itself  bear  a  less  decided  witness  in 
favour  ot  this  view.  Some  one,  perhaps,  will  say  :  It  is  all  very 
well  to  heap  together  tlie  greatest  possible  number  of  beautiful 
attributes ;  but  the  question  is,  whether  it  is  rational  to  pre¬ 
dicate  all  these  together  of  God  ?  Yes,  I  reply,  the  biblical 
conception  ot  God  is  also  the  most  rational,  and  the  one  that 
recommends  itself  most  strongly  to  our  understanding.  It 
is  true  that  Ilis  sublimities  far  transcend  all  the  perceptions 
of  reason.  But  they  are  not  ttnrcasonable  because  they  are 
beyond  the  scope  of  reason.  Ho  reasonable  man  can  expect 
that  he  as  a  finite  being  should  entirely  and  perfectly  compre¬ 
hend  the  infinite  God  ;  to  do  this,  he  must  himself  be  God. 
And  it  is  therefore  perfectly  comprehensible  to  any  discreet, 
temperate  mind,  which  remains  conscious  of  its  limitations, 
that  the  Scriptures  should  reserve  the  perfect  knowledge  of 
God  for  the  intuition  of  another  life  (1  Cor.  xiii.  12  ;  2  Cor. 

P 


226 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCEIPTUEE. 


[LECT.  IV. 


V.  7  ;  1  John  hi.  2).  The  only  question  therefore  is,  whether 
this  preliminary  knowledge  of  God  with  which  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures  furnish  us,  on  the  express  understanding  of  its  frag¬ 
mentary  nature,  really  recommends  itself  to  onr  reason,  and 
not  merely  to  our  hearts.  And  this  it  does  infinitely  more 
than  any  other  conception. 

Is  it  not,  I  ask  in  the  first  place,  the  most  reasonable  thing 
we  can  do  to  adopt  that  conception  of  God  which  renders  the 
necessary  divine  perfections,  and  also  the  m3"stery  of  the  world 
and  onr  own  being,  more  intelligible  than  does  any  other  ? 
Our  idea  of  God  fulfils  all  these  requirements.  We  have 
already  seen  that  the  attributes  of  eternal  vitality  and  per¬ 
sonality,  of  omnipresence,  omniscience,  omnipotence,  etc.,  which 
we  are  bound  to  attribute  to  the  Absolute  as  such,  are  unintelli¬ 
gible,  unless  with  tlie  Bible  we  presuppose  God  to  be  spirit. 
Moreover,  it  is  no  longer  a  mystery  to  me  that  God  should 
create  worlds,  notwithstanding  the  perfect  self-sufficiency  of 
His  Being,  if  I  know  that  He  is  Love,  Avhose  nature  is  to  desire 
that  other  beings  outside  itself  should  rejoice  in  their  existence. 
It  is  no  longer  a  matter  of  wonder  to  me  that,  in  every  grain 
of  dust  and  in  every  drop  of  water,  traces  of  infinite  wisdom 
obtrude  themselves  on  my  notice,  when  I  think  of  God  as  the 
highest  self-conscious  Intelligence.  I  am  no  longer  at  a  loss  to 
account  for  the  requirements  of  a  law  in  my  conscience  which 
is  altogether  different  to  that  wdiich  rules  in  nature,  when  I 
know  that  the  holy  God  is  thereby  teaching  me  His  holy 
will.  Again,  it  appears  to  me  in  the  highest  degree  reason¬ 
able  that  God  should  reveal  Himself  in  the  Scriptures  step  by 
step,  gradually  disclosing  to  man  the  depths  of  His  own  nature  : 
first  His  power,  goodness,  and  wdsdom ;  then  His  holiness  and 
justice  ;  and  Iqst  of  all,  in  Christ,  His  world-subduing  love.  So 
soon  as  I  form  the  idea  that  He  is  a  Father  who  is  educating 
man,  I  see  why  He  communicates  Himself  to  him  in  a  special 
manner  during  childhood,  and  then  places  the  earlier  periods 
of  man’s  existence  under  a  law  somewhat  different  from  that 
which  rules  the  later  ones.  Yes,  in  view  of  the  moral  freedom 
of  man,  it  no  longer  seems  inexplicable  that  God  should  have 
allowed  him  to  sin,  and  thereby  to  bring  such  unutterable  woes 
upon  our  race,  if  I  can  believe  that  the  purpose  and  counsel  of 
God  from  all  eternity  was  to  redeem  man  through  Christ,  and  to 


LECT.  IV.] 


BIBLICAL  THEISM. 


227 

bring  him  back  into  blessed  fellowship  wdth  Himself.  It  no 
lomrer  seems  a  strange  chance  that,  in  the  course  of  the  world’s 
history,  I  should  perceive  so  many  traces  of  righteous  justice 
and  holy  laws  never  to  be  infringed  with  impunity,  when  I 
know  that  a  righteous  God  is  in  the  seat  of  government, 
guiding  everything  according  to  His  holy  purposes.  Hay,  do 
not  the  mysteries  of  my  own  life’s  experience  become  closer 
and  clearer  when  I  illumine  them  with  the  light  of  the  utter¬ 
ance,  “  I  have  loved  thee  with  an  everlasting  love ;  therefore 
with  loving-kindness  have  I  drawn  thee  ”  (Jer.  xxxi.  3) ;  that 
is,  with  the  belief  in  God  as  a  Father,  who  in  everything,  be  it 
love  or  be  it  severity,  seeks  to  draw  me  to  Himself  ?  The 
inmost  yearning  of  my  soul  after  God  only  becomes  intelligible 
to  me,  and  is  satisfied  in  its  profoundest  depths,  when  I  know 
that  God  in  His  compassion  meets  me  half  way  and  imparts 
Himself  to  me,  because  He  is  love. 

Once  more  I  ask,  is  it  not  consonant  with  reason  to  accept 
an  idea  of  God  which  furnishes  me  with  a  hey  to  the,  most  im¬ 
portant  questions  connected  with  the  icorld  and  with  my  life  ? 
If  the  other  conceptions  of  God  lead  me  only  to  an  inexplicable 
something,  at  which  my  thoughts  are  to  rest ;  and  if,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  biblical  conception  of  God  affords  me,  in 
respect  to  the  ultimate  cause  of  things,  at  least  a  notion,  the 
substance  of  which  I  can  in  some  measure  comj^rehend,  and 
which — even  in  practical  life — solves  many  enigmas  whicii 
must  else  remain  unsolved ;  then  surely  the  rationality  of  this 
conception  of  God  must  be  greater  than  that  of  all  others,  and 
the  words  hold  good,  “  The  fear  of  the  Lord,”  that  is,  the  theo¬ 
retical  and  practical  observance  of  this  idea,  “  is  the  beginning 
of  wisdom.” 

(c)  Finally,  the  biblical  conception  of  God  recommends 
itself  by  its  heauty  no  less  than  in  other  ways ;  for  in  this 
respect,  too,  it  far  surpasses  all  other  cognate  ideas. 

For  the  most  part  it  would  be  hard  to  discover  an  aspect 
of  beauty  in  the  non-biblical  conceptions  of  God.  Pliilo- 
sophical  definitions  of  the  divine  nature  may  tickle  our  intel¬ 
lectual  palate ;  but  abstract  ideas  of  this  kind  will  not  touch 
our  sense  of  beauty.  And  yet  tlie  God  who  formed  the  world, 
as  a  beautiful  expression  of  His  own  mind  (Gen.  i.  31),  and 
then  made  it  oi'er  to  luan  as  His  beautiful  image,  to  impress 


228 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCEIPTUllE. 


[lect.  IV. 


upon  it  the  divine  brightness  of  His  Spirit,  and  glorify  it  into  His 
own  likeness, — surely  this  God  who  is  the  most  perfect  Being 
must  also  be  the  most  beautiful,  and  must,  therefore,  most 
forcibly  arouse  and  attract  to  Himself  the  sense  of  beauty  felt 
by  His  image — man.  Both  in  His  physical.  His  intellectual, 
and  moral  attributes,  the  God  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  is  a  God 
of  surpassing  beauty.  Hot,  indeed.  His  formless  and  invisible 
essence,  but  His  overt  action  and  self-manifestation,  especially 
in  Christ,  have  for  this  reason  at  all  times  been  an  inex¬ 
haustible  mine  of  wealth  for  representative  art,  and  have 
inspired  it  to  its  sublimest  and  most  ideal  productions. 

All  true  beauty  is  the  outward  expression  of  something 
good.  That  which  is  perfectly  good  can  only  appear  in  per¬ 
fect  beauty.  Hence  the  biblical  doctrine  as  to  the  glory  of 
God,  and  in  connection  with  it  the  future  transformation  of  the 
wmrld.  The  holy  and  living  God  stands  in  the  most  effective 
relationship  to  His  world.  He  is  the  glorious  One,  whose 
glory  extends  to  the  utmost  limits  of  the  universe,  and  is 
manifested  by  the  creation.  His  own  handiwork,  in  which  He 
is  all-present,  and  all-guiding.  Even  now  “  the  heavens  de¬ 
clare  the  glory  of  God,”  and  “the  whole  earth  is  full  of  His 
glory”  (Ps.  xix.  2,  xcvii.  6,  cxiii.  4  ;  Isa.  vi.  3,  et  al.) ;  and 
one  day  it  shall  be  still  more  so  when  God’s  kingdom  is 
consummated  (Hum.  xiv.  2 1  •;  Ps.  Ixxii.  1 9  ;  Isa.  xl.  5  ;  Ezek. 
xxxviii.  23  ;  Hab.  ii.  14  ;  Tit.  ii.  13,  et  al). 

If  we  more  closely  consider  the  intrinsic  substance  and  the 
apparent  form  of  this  divine  glory,  we  find  that  the  secret  of 
God’s  beauty  is  primarily  involved  in  His  nature  as  light, 
which  reflects  the  purity,  holiness,  grace,  and  gladness  of  His 
inner  being,  and  radiates  around  Him  this  intrinsic  beauty. 
Is  there  in  nature  anything  more  beautiful  than  light,  and 
is  there  in  the  moral  world  anything  more  beautiful  than 
holiness  ?  He  is  incomparable,  both  in  His  essence  and  in 
His  actions  (Ex.  xv.  11;  Ps.  xxxv.  10,  Ixxi.  19,  Ixxxvi.  3, 
Ixxxix.  9  ;  Dent.  hi.  24,  etc.).  What  can  we  imagine  more 
grand  and  majestic  than  the  outward  demonstrations  of  the 
glories  of  God,  which  are  occasionally  described  in  Scripture, 
from  the  manifestation  on  Sinai  down  to  the  glorious  second 
ad  vent  of  Christ  ?  What  brilliant  pictures  are  spread  before 
us  by  the  prophetic  seers,  describing  the  heavenly  glories  of 


LECT.  IV.] 


EIBLICAL  THEISM. 


229 


God  and  of  Clirist  (Isa.  vi. ;  Ezek.  i. ;  Rev.  i.,  iv.),  and  of  the 
neAV  world  that  is  to  come  glorified  in  the  light  of  God  (Rev. 
xxi.,  xxii.  ;  Isa.  Ixv.  17  ff.)  !  How  plainly  does  the  struggle  for 
language  show  that  words  and  figures  were  alike  inadequate  to 
express  that  which  they  intuitively  perceived  !  Two  names  in 
particular  which  the  Old  Testament  applies  to  God  point  to 
His  majestic  beauty  and  glory.  The  one  is  :  “  Jehovah  that 
dwelleth  between  the  cherubim”  (1  Sam.  iv.  4;  2  Sam.  vi.  2  ; 
Rs.  xcix.  1  ;  Isa.  xxxvii.  1 6) ;  for  the  latter  are  simply  the 
exponents  of  His  glory  and  of  his  active  presence  in  the  world. 
The  other  name  is  still  more  frequently  applied  to  God,  viz. 
“  Jehovah  Sabaoth,  the  Lord  of  Hosts,”  that  is,  not  only  of  the 
heavenly  bodies,  but  especially  of  the  heavenly  spirits.  Reing 
the  messengers  of  God  and  the  instruments  of  His  will  (Ps. 
ciii.  20,  and  frequently),  also  the  witnesses  accompanying 
Jehovah  when  He  Himself  appears  in  His  kingly  and  judicial 
glory  (Deut.  xxxiii.  2  ;  Ps.  Iviii.  18),  these  spirits  constitute,  as 
it  were,  the  “  celestial  Church,”  which  heads  “  the  antiphoiiy  of 
the  universe  ”  (Ps.  cxlii.  2,  cl.  1),  offering  adoration  to  God 
in  the  heavenly  sanctuary,  and  celebrating  both  His  mighty 
rule  in  nature  (Ps.  xxix.  19),  and  His  miracles  of  mercy  (Ps. 
Ixxxix.  6  fi'.).  How  grandly  beautiful,  how  solely  worthy  of 
God  are  these  views,  and,  in  conjunction  wuth  them,  how 
blessed  the  promise,  “  Thine  eyes  shall  see  the  King  in  His 
beauty  ”  (Isa.  xxxiii.  1 7)  ! 

But  above  all,  what  unique  moral  beauty  is  exhibited  to  us 
in  “  the  Eairest  among  the  children  of  men  ”  (Ps.  xlv.  3),  who 
could  say  of  Himself,*  “  He  that  hath  seen  me,  hath  seen  my 
Father  also  !  ”  His  countenance  full  of  grace  and  truth,  Hia 
actions  full  of  infinite  compassion,  gentleness,  and  holy  zeal. 
His  sufferings  full  of  priestly  majesty,  all  place  before  our 
eyes  a  picture  of  perfect  spiritual  beauty  and  moral  sublimity 
so  absolutely  harmonious  and  spotless,  that  the  whole  race  of 
man  has  nothing  which  can  be  compared  to  it.  And  yet  all 
this  was  nothing  more  than  the  reflection  of  the  Father’s  glory 
shaded  by  an  earthly  and  human  incarnation  (John  i.  14; 
1  Cor.  ii.  8),  in  One  wdro  had  divested  Himself  of  Ills  divine 
fulness,  and  had  taken  on  Him  the  shape  of  a  servant. 

In  the  next  place,  if  we  transfer  our  attention  from  the 
revealed  aspect  of  God  to  His  internal  nature,  how  beautiful  is 


230 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCKIPTUEE. 


[LECT.  IV. 


the  intrinsic  harmony  of  His  Bein"  in  all  His  attributes,  both 
intellectual  and  moral !  With  what  beautiful  harmony  do  the 
fundamental  principles  of  His  nature  flow  one  from  the  otlier 
—  spirit,  light,  life,  loye  !  Or,  if  we  distinguish  these  attri¬ 
butes  one  from  another,  how  beautiful  is  their  mutual  cor¬ 
respondence  !  We  may,  for  instancy  distinguish,  as  aboye, 
between  the  attributes  of  God  resulting  from  His  yitality,  and 
those  flowing  from  His  nature  as  light.  On  the  one  hand,  there 
appertain  to  His  yitality.  His  absence  of  beginning  and  all- 
sufflciency.  His  eternity  and  immutability.  His  omnipotence 
and  omnipresence ;  on  the  other  hand,  to  His  nature  as  light, 
belong  His  inyisibility,  omnisapience,  omniscience,  loye,  justice, 
and  holiness.  How  beautifully  these  two  series  of  attributes 
correspond  to  and  supplement  each  other ! — in  one,  the  all- 
sufficiency  of  God  ;  ill  the  other.  His  intrinsic  life  of  loye :  in 
one,  eternity  and  immutability  ;  in  the  other,  spirituality  and 
inyisibility  ;  in  one,  omnipotence  ;  in  the  other,  omnisapience  : 
in  one,  omnipresence  ;  in  the  other,  omniscience.  Can  there 
be  a  harmony  more  beautiful  ? 

The  beauty  of  God,  as  regards  His  action,  further  depends 
on  the  harmonious  development  of  all-  His  attributes  in  His 
overt  manifestations.  And  wdth  what  perfect  beauty  does  the 
God  of  the  Bible  unfold  these  attributes  as  holy  love,  in  which 
idea  the  whole  fulness  of  His  essence  and  action  is  expressed ! 
Can  anything  produce  a  more  harmonious  development  than 
love  ?  How  beautifully  does  it  unite  such  contrasts  as 
sublimity  and  gentleness,  as  majesty  and  condescension  ! 
How  beautifully  does  the  fatherly  guidance  of  God  exhibit 
to  us  His  holy  wdsdom  and  discipline,  combined  with  a  con¬ 
stant  respect  for  our  human  freedom  !  With  what  wondrous 
and  soothing  beauty  does  God  balance  the  awe  with  which  His 
physical  attributes  inspire  us  by  the  trust  and. self-surrender 
which  His  moral  attributes  awaken  in  us — as,  e.y.,  in  the  text 
already  quoted,  “  I  dwell  in  the  high  and  holy  place,  and 
with  him  also  that  is  of  a  contrite  and  humble  spirit  I”  How 
beautiful  it  is  that  His  action  ever  awakens  both  veneration 
and  love  !  And  in  what  unequalled  beauty  shall  this  holy 
love  stand  before  us  at  the  end  of  the  world’s  course,  when  old 
things  have  been  done  away  with,  and  all  things  have  become 
new!  Then  this  love  shall  wipe  away  all  tears  fiom  the  eyes 


LECT.  IV.] 


BIBLICAL  THEISM. 


231 


of  the  redeemed,  and  guide  the  thirsty  to  fountains  of  living 
water,  and  its  pure  beams  shall  illumine  the  heavenly  city  of 
God,  in  which  He  will  dwell  among  His  glorified  people 
enthroned  in  everlasting  glory  (Itev.  xxi.,  xxii.). 

The  poet  might  well  complain  of  the  deist’s  god,  that  under 
his  sceptre  life  became  so  gloomy,  and  “  the  world  deprived  of 
deities”  so  soulless.  When  the  world,  “her  leading-strings 
at  length  outgrown,  free  hovers  and  upholds  herself,” — that 
is  to  .say,  when  we  accept  tlie  rationalist’s  idea  of  God, — this 
complaint  is  completely  justified.  But  if,  instead  of  this,  the 
biblical  idea  of  God,  so  glorious  and  yet  so  soothing,  had  been 
presented  to  the  poet’s  eye,  assuredly  his  soul  would  have 
embraced  its  living  beauty  with  fervid  aspirations. 

Let  us  just  for  a  moment  compare  the  other  conceptions  of 
God  with  that  of  the  Bible  in  point  of  beauty.  In  the  one 
case  we  have  an  unconscious  mundane  soul,  whose  rule,  in  a 
moral  point  of  view,  is  no  better  than  that  of  animal  instinct ; 
in  the  other,  a  self-conscious,  holy,  all- wise  intelligence  :  in  the 
one  case,  a  universal  substance  under  the  iron  law  of  necessity, 
first  begetting  a  world,  and  then  again  swallowing  it  up  ;  in  the 
other,  a  free,  creative  will  which,  in  love  to  men,  places  itself 
in  relation  to  them  as  free  beings  according  to  the  moral  laws  ; 
or  again,  in  the  one  case,  a  Being  who  was  once  a  Creator,  but 
now  rests  in  slothful  inactivity,  not  troubling  Himself  about 
His  creatures  individually ;  in  the  other,  a  Lather  who 
“  openeth  His  hand  and  filleth  all  things  living  with  plen¬ 
teousness,”  who  also  “  clothes  the  lilies  and  the  grass  of  the 
field,”  and  “feeds  the  fowls  of  the  air:”  in  the  one  case,  a 
mere  indifferent  looker-on,  who  leaves  the  world  entirely  to 
itself,  or  at  best  observes  it  from  some  astronomical  distance ; 
in  the  other,  “  One  who  keepeth  Israel,  and  neither  slumbereth 
nor  sleepetli,”  and  guideth  His  people  like  a  faithful  shepherd. 
Listen,  on  the  one  hand,  to  a  Lalande,  who  presumptuously 
exclaims  “For  sixty  years  I  have  surveyed  the  heavens,  and 
never  as  yet  have  I  seen  Him  !”  or  to  a  La  Place,  who  says, 
“  111  my  heaven  I  can  find  no  God;”  and  hear,  on  the  other, 
the  king  of  Israel,  who,  in  holy  awe,  ejaculates,  “  Whither 
shall  I  flee  from  Thy  presence?”  “Behold,  the  heaven  of 
heavens  cannot  contain  Thee:”  listen,  on  the  one  hand,  to 
a  Hegel,  who  looks  upon  the  starry  world  as  nothing  better 


232  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  [lECT.  IV. 

than  “  a  luminous  eruption,  no  more  worthy  of  wonder  than 
an  eruption  in  man,  or  a  swarm  of  flies;”  and,  on  the  other, 
to  the  pious  psalmist,  to  whom  “  the  heavens  declare  the  glory 
of  God.”  Compare,  I  pray  you,  these  antagonistic  views  of 
God  and  the  world,  and  then  tell  me  candidly  which  is  the 
more  beautiful,  the  more  sublime,  and  the  more  worthy  of 
God  and  man  ? 

On  this  point,  however,  the  objection  is  very  frequently 
raised,  that,  side  by  side  with  many  exalted  ideas  of  God, 
there  are  in  the  Bible,  at  least  in  the  Old  Testament,  many 
views'  unworthy  of  Him.  This  widely-spread  notion  is  in 
innumerable  cases  not  merely  a  main  item,  but  also  the  source 
of  modern  doubts  as  to  the  Christian  faith.  The  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  is  not  in  harmony  with  tlie  taste  of  the  present  day. 
Thus,  for  instance,  a  recent  publication  ^  exj^resses  itS'  opinion 
as  to  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  following  disgrace- 
fully  blasphemous  language  :  “  The  covenant  of  Jehovah  is 
directed  towards  distinctly  material  and  immoral  aims.  His 
agreement  goes  into  the  very  smallest  details,  just  as  would 
any  Jewish  tradesman.  He  has  to  be  incessantly  reminded 
of  His  obligations ;  and  in  order  to  save  His  credit.  He  is 
compelled  to  incur  considerable  expense  in  furnishing  manna 
and  quails.  The  God  of  jMoses  is  just  such  a  person  as  the 
Jew  likes  to  do  business  with.  In  paradise  he  takes  His 
walk  ;  travels  to  Sodom  for  the  purpose  of  inspecting  the 
property ;  dines  with  Abraham  off  roast  veal  and  cakes ;  has 
a  tussle  with  Jacob  ! ! !  ”  etc.  Voices  such  as  these  might 
well  be  left  to  their  own  ignominv.  But  if  we  set  aside  the 
scurrility  of  expression,  we  And  tliat  they  give  vent  to  objec¬ 
tions  whicli  go  far  to  render  the  Old  Testament  repulsive,  to 
many.  The  chiet  stumbling-blocks  in  this  case  are  tlie  nature 
and  mode  of  God’s  intercourse  with  man.  His  too  human-like 
appearances  and  feelings.  His  wrath,  vengeance,  repentance, 
and  the  like.  In  the  face  of  these  objections,^  of  wliich  we 
can  here  only  consider  tlie  most  important,  I  would  recom¬ 
mend  you  to  keep  in  view  two  things  :  first,  the  gradual  pro¬ 
gress  of  revelation,  in  which  God  must  educate  mankind 

*  Die  Jiulen  und  der  deutsche  Stmt,  5th  e<I.,  1862. 

*  For  further  details,  see  Ileiiit;jcler  (Zie  Anstlil&e  in  der  heil.  Schrift,  Stuttgut, 
1864. 


LECT.  IV,] 


BIBLICAL  THEISM. 


2:33 


(Dent.  viii.  5),  dccdwfj  therefore  with  them  at  first  as  children, 
and  condescending  to  them  in  a  way  different  from  His  bear¬ 
ing  towards  men ;  and,  second,  tlie  circumstance  that  God 
Himself  and  the  instruments  of  His  manifestation,  such  as 
the  angels  in  the  case  of  Abraham  and  Jacob,  are  not  to  he 
considered  as  absohdehj  identical.  In  this  way  very  many  of 
the  situations  which  are  supposed  to  be  unworthy  of  God  lose 
their  apparently  offensive  character. 

God  approaclies  the  first  sinners  in  Paradise  “  in  the  cool  of 
the  day,”  just  as  a  father  and  tutor  might  do  in  a  human  or 
human-like  shape.  But  if  He  sought  to  gain  their  confidence, 
could  He  converse  with  them  in  any  other  than  human  shape  ? 
Having  once  given  a  bodily  form  to  tlie  image  of  Himself  in 
man.  He  manifests  Himself  so  as  to  be  recognised  by  his 
bodily  senses.  Man  has  now  cut  himself  off  from  God;  but 
Gcd  approaches  man  because  He  cannot  and  will  not  leave 
him.  And  for  this  purpose  He  chooses  the  evening,  which 
in  the  east  is  the  most  pleasant  hour,  not  in  order  to  avoid 
being  molested  by  the  sun,  but  in  order  to  give  to  the  sinners 
one  day  more  in  which  to  present  themselves  to  Him  as 
penitent.  “  When  the  sun  for  the  last  time  gilded  with  its 
rays  the  glory  of  Paradise,”  as  Spurgeon  exclaims,  “  when  the 
evening  dews  dropped  a  tear  over  the  sin  of  man,  v'hen  all 
was  so  still  that  man  was  more  easily  led  to  think  about 
himself  and  his  offence,  and  the  heaven  above  was  resplendent 
with  its  lights,  in  order  that  man  in  now  approaching  dark¬ 
ness  might  still  have  hope,”  then  the  riglit  moment  had 
arrived,  then  He  lets  the  guilty  ones  hear  the  rustling  of  His 
footsteps,  so  as  to  show  them  that  man  cannot  hide  himself 
from  the  face  of  God.  And  yet  shallow  mockers  talk  about 
“  promenading  in  the  cool  of  the  evening  !  ”  This  necessity 
for  a  human  form  of  the  divine  manifestation,  which  has  its 
true  cause  in  His  condescension  to  mankind,  and  its  climax 
in  the  incarnation  of  God  in  Christ,  it  is  not  to  be  understood 
as  if  bodily  shape  formed  part  of  the  nature  of  God ;  for  it  is 
well  known  how  strictly  all  images  of  God  are  forbidden  in 
the  Old  Testament,  But  it  explains  to  us  what  we  read  of 
divine  communications  and  manifestations  in  the  lives  of  our 
first  parents  and  the  patriarchs. 

No  words  need  be  wasted  on  the  scurrile  objection  to  God’s 


234 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCEIPTURE. 


[lect.  IV. 


covenant  with  Israel,  as  being  an  immoral  Jewish  business 
transaction.  It  is  probably  intended  for  a  jeu  dJ  esprit, 
but  betrays  a  superficiality  and  triviality  which  are  truly 
astounding.  For  where  is  there  any  human  code  of  laws,  or 
even  any  moral  precept  of  a  heathen  philosopher,  which  can 
compare  with  the  Mosaic  law  as  regards  the  strictest  require¬ 
ments  of  the  subliinest  morality, — in  other  words,  of  holiness, — 
or  in  respect  of  the  severe  persecution  and  condemnation  of 
sin,  down  to  its  innermost  source  in  evil  desire  ? 

We  may  deal  in  a  similar  way  with  the  objection  tliat  has 
also  often  been  raised,  that  it  is  unworthy  of  God  for  Him  to 
appear,  as  He  often  does  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  “  the  par¬ 
ticular  God  of  a  special  nation,”  becau.se  He  is  often  called 
“the  Lord  thy  God,”  or  because,  e.g.  in  Ex.  ix.  1,  in  speaking 
to  I'haraoh,  He  calls  Himself  “  the  God  of  the  Hebrews.” 
But  all  this  is  mere  superficial  talk.  For  is  not  Monotheism, — 
i.e.  the  belief  that  there  is  only  one  true  and  living  God  in 
the  whole  world,  and  that  this  is  the  God  of  Israel, — is  not 
this,  I  say,  the  groundwork  of  the  Mosaic  religion  ?  The 
phrase,  “  the  Lord  thy  God,”  refers  only  to  the  sp)ccial  covenant 
of  God  with  Israel;  why  should  it  be  unworthy  of  God  so 
to  call  Himself,  thus  reminding  Israel  of  their  covenant 
duties  ?  .Surely  none  will  attempt  to  deny  that  it  was  ex¬ 
ceedingly  wise,  and  even  necessary,  that  the  knowledge  of  the 
true  divine  revelation  should  be  entrusted  to  one  branch  of 
the  human  race,  and  be  continued  in  it  until  the  time  of  ful¬ 
filment,  when  it  might  become  a  benefit  common  to  all  man- 
kind  1  Even  in  this  “  particularism,”  have  we  not  innumer¬ 
able  intimations  of  the  fact,  that  the  God  of  Israel  was  at  the 
same  time  the  God  of  the  whole  world,  and  that  the  gods  of 
all  other  nations  were  but  vain  idols  ?  (Ps.  xlvi.  5,  xlv.  3, 
Ixxxvi.  8,  cxxxv.  5  ;  Isa.  ii.  18,  xli.  29,  xlv.  21,  and 
frequently.)  What  can  there  be  more  universal  than  the 
one  Creator  and  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth  ?  Or  if  the  point 
of  the  objection  is  supposed  to  be,  that  the  “  special  God  of 
the  Israelites,”  as  such,  ignored  other  nations,  then  we  ask — 
must  ask — Was  it  not  God’s  purpose,  in  calling  Abraham,  in 
his  seed  to  bless  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  although  for  a 
long  time  “  He  suffered  all  nations  to  walk  in  their  own 
ways  ”  ?  (Acts  xvi.  1 6.)  Does,  then,  the  Old  Covenant  contain 


LECT.  IV.] 


BIBLICAL  THEISM. 


235 


no  promises  from  the  heatlien  ?  (cf.  Isa.  xix.  2  5,  xlix.  6, 
lx.  3  ff. ;  Ps.  Ixxii.  1 0  ff.,  xcviii.  2  ff.,  and  frequently.)  How 
often  is  the  ichole  world  called  upon  to  praise  God  !  (Ps.  xcvi., 
xcvii.,  xcviii.,  c.,  etc.)  Or  does  the  Old  Testament,  generally 
speaking,  pay  less  consideration  than  it  ought  to  other  nations  ? 
"What  can  we  find  more  universal  in  its  character  than  the  his¬ 
tory  of  mankind  contained  in  the  first  ten  chapters  of  the  Bible  1 
No  people  of  antiquity  ever  attained  even  to  the  idea  of  an 
universal  history  of  mankind  ;  it  is  only  possible  on  the  ground 
of  revelation ;  and  there,  it  exists  from  the  v^erv  beGfinnimr. 

But  did  not  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament  on  one  occasion 
incite  to  rolherij  ?  So  we  hear  many  indignantly  ask,  in  view 
of  the  passage  Ex.  iii.  21,  22  (cf.  xi.  2  fi.,  xii.  35  ff.).  This 
reproach  is  based  simply  on  a  misunderstanding  of  the  passage. 
Before  its  departure,  Israel  is  told. to  demand  from  the  Egyp¬ 
tians  golden  and  silver  vessels,  and  thus  to  “  spoil  the  Egyp¬ 
tians  ”  (a.s  to  the  signification  of  the  word,  cf.  2  Chron.  xx. 
25).  This  command  was  subsequently  carried  out.  But  this 
“spoiling”  is  very  different  from  secret  theft,  or  from  osten¬ 
sibly  borrowing  (cf  xii.  36)  without  the  intention  to  return. 
The  Israelites  from  the  outset  ash  for  or  demand  these  orna¬ 
ments,  without  any  intention  of  restoring  them  ;  and  the  Egyp¬ 
tians  give  (not  “  lend  ”)  them  without  hope  of  receiving  them 
back.  They  were  so  overcome  with  terror,  that  they  were  glad 
enough  to  get  rid  of  Israel  on  these  terms.  These  gifts  to 
which  God  inclined  the  hearts  of  the  Egyptians  were  carried 
away  by  Israel  as  a  booty,  in  token  of  the  victory  which 
God’s  omnipotence  had  granted  to  His  weak  people.  The 
whole  took  place  openly  and  fairly,  and  assuredly  it  was 
nothing  more  than  equitable.  How  much  valuable  property 
in  the  shape  of  houses,  lands,  and  utensils,  must  Israel  have 
left  behind  in  Egypt !  And  for  how  many  centuries  had 
Israel  been  robbed  by  the  Egyptians,  through  unjust  enslave¬ 
ment  !  The  righteous  God  now  takes  care  that  Israel  shall 
not  remain  unrewarded,  or  go  away  empty,  after  so  long  a 
period  of  severe  labour ;  and  so  Israel  is  permitted  to  despoil 
his  oppressors,  but  at  the  same  time  with  their  knowledge  and 
consent, — “  a  prelude  of  the  victory  which  the  people  of  God, 
in  their  contest  with  the  power  of  the  world,  shall  always 
obtain”  (Zech.  xiv.  14). 


236 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCIHPTURE. 


[lECT.  IV. 


Another  stumbling-block  for  many  lies  in  the  divine  com¬ 
mand  for  the  extirpation  of  the  Canaanites  (Dent.  vii.  1  ff., 
XX.  16-18,  etc.).  Strange  to  say!  For  when  we  read  else¬ 
where  in  history  that  a  morally  decrepit  and  enervated  nation 
has  been  destroyed  by  some  fresher  people,  then  we  talk 
about  a  Nemesis,  a  just  fate,  and  the  like.  But  in  the  present 
case,  as  soon  as  Jehovah  steps  forth  in  the  place  of  this 
undefined  power,  these  sentimentalists  begin  to  shriek  out 
about  a  bloodthirsty  God.  Nevertheless,  not  only  in  this,  but 
in  all  similar  cases,  it  is  the  same  God  who  passes  the  sen¬ 
tence  of  extirpation,  and  makes  use  of  certain  nations  as  a 
scourge  for  others.  Judgments  of  this  kind  are  a  universal 
law  of  history.  The  only  distinction  is  this,  that  that  which 
is  accomplished  by  other  nations  unconsciously,  though  accord¬ 
ing  to  God’s  counsel,  is  to  be  done  by  Israel  consciously  and 
in  name  of  his  God.  And  can  it  be  said  that  this  condemna¬ 
tion  was  not  a  just  one  ?  Centuries  before,  God  had  said  that 
He  would  allow  the  inhabitants  of  Canaan  a  respite  until 
‘‘their  iniquity  was  full”  (Gen.  xv.  16).  Now  that  measure 
of  iniquity  has  been  fulfilled.  Not  only  the  usual  crimes  of 
the  heathen,  but  also  special  moral  abominations,  idolatry  in 
its  most  frightful  degeneracy,  accompanied  by  the  most 
unnatural  sins  of  the  flesh  (Lev.  xviii.  24  ff ;  Deut.  ix.  4, 
xii.  31,  xviii.  12),  were  now  to  be  judged,  and,  in  addition 
to  this,  their  hostile  attitude  towards  Israel  (Ex.  xviii. ; 
Num.  xxi.  1  ff. ;  Deut.  ii.  and  iii.)  was  to  be  punished.  Just 
as  the  body  forcibly  ejects  food  which  it  cannot  assimilate, 
so  the  land,  defiled  by  the  unnatural  abominations  of  its  in¬ 
habitants,  forcibly  vomited  forth  the  Canaanites  (Lev.  xviii. 
24,  25).  In  the  world  before  the  flood  it  was  the  water  that 
carried  out  God’s  judgments,  in  Sodom  it  was  fire,  but  now  it 
was  to  be  the  sword  of  Israel  (not,  however,  without  excep¬ 
tions ;  cf  Josh.  vi.  25,  Matt.  i.  5,  Josh.  ix.  19  ff.).  This 
visitation  of  divine  wrath  is  not  to  be  justified — as  some  have 
attempted  to  do — by  bringing  forward  ancient  rights  of  pro¬ 
perty  dating  from  the  patriarchal  age,  which  Israel  had  the 
right  to  assert  against  the  Canaanites  (for  this  is  contrary  to 
Gen.  xii.  6,  xiii.  7).  According  to  the  Old  Testament,  the 
only  ground  on  which  Israel  might  take  possession  of  the  land 
of  Canaan  was  the  favour  of  God  to  whom  the  land  belonged. 


LECT.  IV.] 


BIBLICAL  THEISM. 


237 


who  also  conferred  it  upon  His  people ;  and  the  only  ground 
for  the  extirpation  of  the  Canaanitish  tribes  was  the  justice  of 
God,  vliose  long-sulfering  was  at  length  exhausted,  and  who 
'threatened  Israel  itself,  in  case  it  were  guilty  of  the  same 
sins,  with  the  very  same  punishment  (Lev.  xviii.  28  ;  Deut. 
viii.  19,  20  ;  Josh,  xxiii.  15,  16).  But  this  sentence  of  extir¬ 
pation  was  not  merely  a  holy  act  of  divine  'penal  justice,  it 
was  also  an  act  of  divine  wisdom.  Bor  by  rooting  out  these 
tribes  and  their  idolatry  (Ex.  xxxiv.  13  ff.),  God  desired  to 
hold  up  to  Israel  and  the  surrounding  nations  which  were 
spared  a  warning  example ;  and  especially  by  isolating  Israel, 
to  guard  it  from  the  danger  of  intermingling  with  the  heathen 
(Ex.  xxiii.  32  ff.;  Lev.  xx.  22-26).  The  fact  that  Israel  did 
not  fully  carry  out  the  divine  command,  but  suffered  many 
remnants  of  the  Canaanites  to  remain  in  the  land,  which 
remnants  soon  became  strono;  again,  and  were  a  snare  to 
Israel,  is  an  intimation  to  these  sentimentalists  that  there  is 
such  a  thing  as  a  false  tolerance.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  in  a 
measure  the  prelude  of  that  disobedience  and  fall  of  Israel,  out 
of  which,  according  to  the  wondrously  wise  and  gracious  provi¬ 
dence  of  God,  salvation  was  to  accrue  to  the  heathen  world 
(Bom.  xi.  11,  12). 

After  all,  however,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  a  certain 
distinction  does  exist  between  the  avenmn"  JudM.  of  the  Old 

o  O  O 

Covenant  and  the  God  of  mercy  and  love  of  the  New  Cove¬ 
nant.  Not  that  God  alters  in  His  nature ;  He  ever  wms  and 
is  unalterably  holy  in  all  His  actions.  But  times  and  men 
certainly  do  alter.  Hence  in  God’s  educatory  dealings  with 
man,  everything  has  its  wisely  prescribed  season.  The  truth 
that  God  is  love  could  not  be  revealed  in  its  full  depth,  until 
the  law,  by  its  penalties,  had  brought  about  the  consciousness 
of  sin  and  a  longing  for  entire  release  from  it. 

These  points  should  also  be  kept  in  view  when  considering 
those  Psalms  which  contain  curses  or  prayers  for  vengeance  (cf. 
XXXV.,  lix.,  Ixix.,  cix.,  cxxxvii.).  Even  believers  in  the  Bible 
are  sometimes  offended  by  the  manner  in  which  the  God  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  appealed  to  in  these  psalms  as  a  God  of 
vengeance,  and  also,  generally  speaking,  by  the  whole  spirit 
expressed  in  those  passages  in  which  the  poet  invokes  destruc¬ 
tion  on  his  enemies.  Many  look  upon  these  passages  as  out- 


\ 


238 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCrHPTUEE. 


[LECT.  IV. 


bursts  of  a  base  thirst  for  vengeance,  and  as  indicating  that 
vindictive  feelings,  to  a  certain  extent  at  least,  are  sanctioned 
by  the  Old  Testament.  This  error  ought  to  have  been  averted 
by  a  glance  at  the  divine  precept  of  love  to  one’s  enemies  as 
contained  in  the  Old  Testament  (Ex.  xxiii.  4,  5  ;  Prov.  xxv. 
21),  also  the  divine  prohibition  of  vindictive  feeling  (Lev. 
xix.  18),  and  the  oft-expressed  abhorrence  of  revenge  and 
malignant  pleasure  in  the  misfortunes  of  others  {e.g.  Job  xxxi. 
29,  30;  Ps.  vii.  5;  Prov.  xx.  22,  xxiv.  17,  18,  29;  Ezek. 
XXXV.  15).  Moreover,  as  regards  David,  the  author  of  most 
of  these  psalms,  objectors  should  first  consider  the  generosity 
which  he  so  often  evinced  towards  his  personal  enemies,  and 
also  the  fact  that  in  moments  of  the  highest  religious  inspira¬ 
tion,  such  as  those  in  which  the  I’salms  were  composed,  the 
impure  fire  of  personal  emotion  could  scarcely  mingle  with  the 
lioly  fervour  of  love  to  God.  The  key  to  the  right  under¬ 
standing  of  these  psalms  is  contained  in  Ps.  cxxxix.  19-21  : 
“  Surely  Thou  wilt  slay  the  wicked,  0  God  :  depart  from 
me,  therefore,  ye  bloody  men.  For  they  speak  against  Thee 
wickedly,  and  Thine  enemies  take  Thy  name  in  vain.  Do  not 
I  hate  them,  0  Lord,  that  hate  Thee  ?  and  am  not  I  grieved 
with  those  that  rise  up  against  Thee  ?”  According  to  this,  the 
suffering  servants  of  God  see  in  their  oum  enemies  the  enemies  of 
God  Himself,  and  their  curses  are  directed  against  the  latter, 
lienee  they  are  not  the  expression  of  any  private  vengeance, 
on  account  of  personal  wrong  experienced  by  them,  but  they 
are  the  outflow  of  a  zealous  wrath  against  the  injury  inflicted 
on  the  honour  of  God  and  the  concerns  of  His  kinmlom. 

O 

David,  more  especially  in  the  face  of  his  persecutors,  feels 
liimself  to  be  the  anointed  of  the  Lord,  and  knows  that  on  his 
fate  hangs  the  future  of  Israel.  Whoever  persecutes  him,  sins 
also  against  Christ  in  him.  “  In  this  focus  of  self-contempla¬ 
tion,  as  an  essential  link  in  the  history  of  redemption,  the  fire 
of  his  wrath  is  kindled.”  Frequently,  too,  the  enemy  whom 
the  psalmist  has  in  view,  as  well  as  the  unjust  persecutor,  are 
not  concrete,  historical  persons,  but  poetical  personifications, 
pointing  to  the  future  victory  over  His  enemies  which  the 
perfectly  righteous  One  shall  gain  by  His  sufferings, — the  curse 
in  this  case  being  addressed  in  general  against  the  feeling  of 
hostility  to  God.  Where,  however,  the  psalmist  clearly  refers 


LECT.  IV.] 


BIBLICAL  THEISM. 


239 


to  definite  persons,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  vengeance 
of  God  on  obstinate  sinners  is  an  act  as  necessary  to  His  justice 
as  wholesome  for  the  consummation  of  the  divine  kingdom. 
Hence,  even  in  the  New  Testament  there  are  passages  in 
which  a  curse  is  pronounced  on  irreclaimable  enemies  of  God, 
and  divine  punishment  is  invoked  upon  them  (Matt.  xi.  20  if., 
xxiii.  13  ff.;  Acts  viii.  20,  xxiii.  3). 

But  at  the  same  time  we  must  acknowledge  the  imperfec¬ 
tion  of  the  Old  Testament  standpoint  occupied  by  the  sacred 
poets.  The  lively  impatience  of  their  longing  for  divine  judg¬ 
ments  on  their  enemies  probably  arose,  in  part,  from  a  feeling 
of  human  ivcahiess  unable  to  cope  with  tribulation,  and  which 
is  therefore  in  Eev.  vi.  10,  11  exhorted  to  wait  patiently.  At 
that  time,  moreover,  a  dark  veil  permitted  but  dim  glimpses 
of  eternity,  with  heaven  and  hell ;  so  that  denunciations  such 
as  those  in  Ps.  Ixix.  28  could  not  have  been  understood  by  the 
poet  in  all  their  infinite  depth.  x4nd  finally,  there  had  not 
yet  been  accomplished  that  world-embracing  scheme  of  re¬ 
demption  ordained  by  divine  love,  from  which  alone  could  flow 
the  love  that  would  fain  help  all  men,  even  her  enemies. 
Hence  the  spirit  of  the  New  Covenant  is  in  this  res2)ect  a 
relatively  different  and  a  higher  spirit.  Not  only  were  such 
utterances  as  sj^rang  from  the  language  and  sjtirit  of  Sinai 
unsuited  for  the  lips  of  Jesus,  the  meek  Lamb  of  God,  but 
even  His  discij^les  are  not  to  emulate  the  spirit  of  wrath 
which  inspired  Elias  (Luke  ix.  54  et  ss.),  and  which  some¬ 
times  actuates  the  utterances  of  David  (Ps.  cix.).  They  are 
not  permitted  to  wish  that  even  their  deadliest  enemies  should 
be  everlastingly  lost.  Therefore  when,  in  exceptional  cases, 
the  holy  zeal  of  the  New  Testament  seems  to  touch  upon  that 
of  the  Old,  there  is  this  barrier  between  them, — that  the 
anathemas  of  the  ajDostles  apply  only  to  the  correction  and 
temporal  expulsion  of  enemies  from  the  community,  and  not 
to  their  everlasting  perdition  (Acts  viii.  22,  cf.  with  ver.  20  ; 
1  Cor.  xvi.  22  ;  Gal.  i.  9,  v.  12;  2  Tim.  iv.  14).  No  one 
who  believes  in  the  necessity  of  a  gradually  progressive  reve¬ 
lation  can  take  offence  at  the  form  in  which  Old  Testament 
piety  occasionally  presents  itself  to  us, — a  form  which  is  in¬ 
complete  enough  when  viewed  from  a  Christian  standpoint, 
although  justifiable  at  its  own  peculiar  stage.  Indeed,  it  has 


240 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCRIPTURE. 


[LECT.  IV. 


Tbeen  asserted,  not  without  justice,  that  these  psalms  contain 
a  very  wholesome  antidote  against  the  mawkish  religious 
sentimentality  of  our  own  days,  which,  in  the  case  of  many, 
is  the  chief  source  of  all  these  difficulties,  since  they  are  alike  ' 
incapable  either  of  fervent  love  to  that  which  is  good,  and  of 
holy  ardent  hatred  against  that  which  is  evil. 

Ilaviim  thus  endeavoured  to  vindicate  before  the  forum  of 

o 

modern  consciousness  the  eternal  truth  of  the  general  concep¬ 
tion  of  God — that  is,  of  His  personality  and  special  providence 
- — as  laid  down  in  the  Bible,  we  still  feel  that  we  have  only 
accomplished  the  easier  portion  of  our  task.  For  the  number 
of  those  who  reject  the  general  system  of  biblical  Theism  is,  on 
the  whole — and  probably  among  my  readers  also — far  less  than 
that  of  those  who  entertain  doubts  as  to  the  specific  Christian, 
that  is,  tlie  Trinitarian,  conception  of  God.  How,  therefore, 
we  must  give  a  closer  consideration  to  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity.  The-  subject,  however,  is  so  wide  a  one,  that 
in  respect  of  many  questions  which  converge  in  this  central 
point,  we  shall  not  be  able  to  give  more  than  mere  hints, 
■which  may  tend  to  remove  the  manifold  offences  that  attach 
to  this  doctrine  in  particular. 


II. - THE  TRINITARIAN  CONCEPTION  OF  THE  DIVINE  NATURE. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  set  forth  in  its  simplest  form  in 
the  Apostles’  (and  Nicene)  Creed,  may  be  assumed  as  univer¬ 
sally  known.  The  so-called  Apostles’  Creed  is,  of  course,  not 
strictly  sj)eaking  of  apostolic  authorship.  Founded  on  our 
Lord’s  own  baptismal  formula  (IMatt.  xxviii.  19),  it  grew  by 
degrees  into  its  present  shape  in  the  midst  of  the  contro¬ 
versies  of  the  first  centuries  of  primitive  Christianity.  In 
accordance  wuth  this  its  origin,  this  Creed  presents  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Trinity  in  the  simple  form  of  a  confession  of 
personal  faith  in  God  the  Father,  in  Jesus  Christ  His  only- 
begotten  Son,  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  in  the  so-called 
Creed  of  St.  Athanasius,  which,  in  addition  to  the  Apostles’ 
and  Hicene,  is  generally  received  in  all  divisions,  Protestant 
as  well  as  Boman  Catholic,  of  the  Western  Church,  we  have 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  formulated  in  the  scliool  of  St. 


LECT.  IV.]  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY.  241 

Augustine  in  a  much  more  developed  shape.  “  The  Catholic 
faith"  according  to  this  formula,  “  is,  that  we  ivorship  one  God 
in  Trinity^  and  Trinity  in  Unity,  neither  confounding  the  Persons 
nor  dividing  the  suhstamce!’  The  Persons,  it  proceeds  to  teach, 
are  different,  the  substance  one.  Each  of  these  divine  Persons 
is  uncreate,  each  is  eternal,  each  almighty,  etc.  And  yet 
there  are  not  three  Almighties  or  three  Eternals,  hut  one 
AlmifThtv  and  one  Eternal,  etc. ;  and  not  three  Gods  or  three 
Lords,  hut  one  Lord  and  one  God.  The  Father  is  uncreate 
and  unbegotten  ;  the  Son  uncreate,  hut  begotten  of  the  Father ; 
the  Holy  Ghost  uncreate,  hut  proceeding  from  the  Father  and 
the  Son.  And  in  this  Trinity  of  divine  Persons  there  is  none 
before  and  none  after,  none  higher  and  none  less,  hut  all 
three  co-equal,  etc. 

This  the  faith  of  the  Church  universal,  in  respect  to  the 
divine  nature,  is  regarded  by  many  in  the  present  day  as  an 

Aherglauhe”  i.e.  an  “ultra-faith”  or  superstition;  while 
others,  without  directly  impugning  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
per  se,  regard  this  particular  form  in  which  it  is  enshrined  as 
of  doubtful  validity,  and  some  of  its  definitions  as  objection¬ 
able  ;  wdiereas  the  Athanasian  Creed  itself  declares  with  the 
utmost  stringency,  that  “  he  who  would  be  saved  must  thus 
think  of  the  Trinity,”  and,  indeed,  rightly  insists  upon  the 
doctrine  as  the  necessary  foundation  of  all  Christian  teaching. 
We  will  now,  taking  the  definitions  of  this  symbol  as  our 
starting-point,  inquire  as  to  the  scriptural  character  of  the 
doctrine  thus  formulated,,  and,  faithful  to  our  general  prin¬ 
ciple,  will  endeavour  frankly  to  acknowledge  and  concede 
where  concession  and  acknowledgment  may  seem  right  and 
necessary. 

And  our  first  confession  is  this :  That  the  scientific  theo¬ 
logy  of  the  present  day,  and,  indeed,  that  branch  of  it  which 
most  closely  adheres  to  the  teaching  of  Holy  Scripture,  pro¬ 
fesses  to  find  (and  not,  I  think,  without  some  reason)  sundry 
defects  in  the  Athanasian  definitions.  The  more  closely  one 
examines  into  what  the  Bible  itself  teaches  concerning  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Sjiirit,  the  more  readily  will 
he  acknowdedge  that  true  and  precious  as  the  nucleus  of  its 
doctrine  remains,  there  are  nevertlieless  some  points  in  the 
teaching  of  this  Creed,  concerning  the  relations  of  the  divine 

Q 


242 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCEIPTUKE. 


[LECT.  IV. 


Persons,  which  are  not  in  full  accord  with  that  of  Scripture. 
And  still  less  do  they  satisfy  the  questions  and  requirements 
of  speculative  theology.  We  confess  with  Nitzsch,  that  while 
the  received  doctrine  of  the  Church  enshrines  the  inestimable 
treasure  of  the  truth  itself,  it  does  not  always  put  it  in  a  form 
acceptable  or  satisfactory  to  the  philosophical  inquirer.  There 
is  in  the  Athanasian  formula,  for  instance,  much  that  is  hard 
and  unnecessarily  offensive,  and  even  provocative  of  doubt 
and  objection ;  nor  can  we  be  surprised  if  such  objections  are 
continually  cropping  up  and  appearing  on  the  surface  through¬ 
out  the  chequered  course  of  Church  History. 

The  Athanasian  Creed  is  evidently  too  stiffly  arithmetical  in 
some  of  its  definitions  and  antitheses,  without  attempt  to  re¬ 
concile  their  obvious  contradictions.  Thus  each  divine  Person 
is  said  to  be  eternal,  each  uncreate,  etc.,  and  yet  there  are  not 
three  Eternals  nor  three  uncreate,  but  one  uncreate  and  one 
Eternal,  etc.  To  these  statements  the  objection  is  obvious,  that 
they  either  destroy  the  Unity  for  the  sake  of  the  Trinity,  or  the 
Trinity  in  the  interest  of  the  Unity  ;  nor  is  it  quite  easy  with 
the  doctrine  so  stated  to  rebut  the  charge  alleged,  not  by  Jews 
and  IMahometans  only,  but  also  by  many  Christians,  that 
Trinitarianism  contradicts  the  fundamental  article  of  all  true 
religion,  that  there  is  only  One  living  and  true  God.  Hence 
the  numerous  attempts  in  ancient  and  modern  times  to  remove 
this  stumbling-block  of  the  understanding,  now  in  one  way, 
now  in  another, — attempts  in  which  the  Trinity  w’as  naturally 
more  frequently  sacrificed  than  the  Unity ;  as,  for  instance,  by 
Socinians  and  Unitarians  since  the  Pieformation,  who  arque 
that  inasmuch  as  IMonotheism  is  evidently  the  fundamental 
doctrine  of  the  Bible,  it  cannot  teach  the  divinity  of  our  Lord, 
and  that  Christ  must  be  therefore  a  mere  man,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  merely  a  divine  influence.  Hence  also  tlae  similar  ob¬ 
jections  of  modern  nationalism,  that  it  contradicts  the  laws 
of  thought,  that  a  part  should  be  equal  to  the  whole,  or  a 
whole  to  its  several  parts, — that,  for  instance,  1  =  3, — an 
objection  the  superficial  character  of  which  is  obvious,  and  the 
answer  to  it  easy.  IMathematical  axioms  are  out  of  place  in 
metapliysical  and  ethical  inquiries.  Our  minds  must  be  carried 
into  a  higher  sphere.  Mathematically  speaking,  no  doubt  two 
persons  are  distinct  entities.  But  of  the  persons  of  the  Trinity, 


LECT.  IV.] 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 


243 


the  Church  has  always  taught  their  unity  of  substance  and 
their  absolute  inseparability,  and  so  lifted  up  the  whole  ques¬ 
tion  into  a  renion  of  transcendent  thought  and  feeling,  of  which 
mathematical  science  is  wholly  ignorant.  We  must  not  con¬ 
found  the  respective  spheres. 

The  Church  herself,  however,  is  ^  not  quite  free  from  blame 
in  this  respect,  on  account  of  the  arithmetical  character  of 
some  parts  of  her  chief  formulary.  The  objections  stirred  by 
these  might  have  been  avoided  by  anticipation,  had  a  firm 
liold  been  taken  from  the  first  of  the  truth  indicated  by  the 
Hebrew  form  of  the  divine  name  Elohim  (as  will  be  more 
fully  shown  presently),  that  in  God  unity  and  plurality  con¬ 
sist  as  correlatives  which  mutually  require  one  another ;  that, 
as  we  have  already  indicated,  it  is  the  essential  characteristic 
of  the  true  doctrine  of  the  divine  nature,  in  contradistinction 
to  Polytheism  on  the  one  hand,  and  an  abstract  IMonotheisni 
on  the  other,  that  both  elements  of  true  Being,  unicity  and 
multiplicity,  do  in  God  meet  and  interpenetrate  one  another 
in  a  perfectly  unique  and  transcendental  way. 

But  now  to  come  to  the  doctrine  itself,  and  its  basis  in 
Holy  Scripture.  You  are  all  aware  that  no  such  sentence  as 
God  is  a  triune  God  is  to  be  found  in  the  Bible.  The  well- 
known  text,  1  John  v.  7,  There  are  three  that  hear  record 
in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  JVoi'd,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  these 
three  are  one,  is  now  universally  recognised  as  an  interpolation. 
The  terms  trinity,  triunity,  threefold  personality,  and  even 
the  word  person  itself,  are  not  derived  immediately  from 
Scripture.  It  fares  with  these  as  with  all  attempts  to  express 
human  conceptions  concerning  the  Divine  and  Infinite — they 
are  but  imperfect,  inadequate  expressions  which  we  accept  and 
use  for  the  want  of  better.  The  very  term  persons  has  some¬ 
thing  objectionable  in  it,  suggesting  at  first  the  notion  of 
distinct  and  separate  individualities,  which  is  perfectly  inap¬ 
plicable  to  the  consubstantial,  and  therefore  inseparable,  hypo¬ 
stases  of  which  the  Bible  speaks  as  Bather,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit. 

Our  Church  formularies  are  undoubtedly  right  in  laying 
stress  on  the  unity  of  substance  in  these  divine  Persons  ;  but 
it  may  be  questioned  whether  they  are  also  right  in  seeming 
to  speak  of  the  divine  substance  as  if  it  were,  in  the  first 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCPJPTUHE. 


[LECT.  IV. 


244 

instance,  something  indefinite  and  universal,  wliicli  was  then 
resolved  into  three  distinct  hypostases.  When  we  speak  of 
“  three  persons  in  one  divine  substance,”  we  use  an  expres¬ 
sion  which  apparently  implies  that  the  substance  is  regarded 
as  something  abstract  and  impersonal,  which  assumes  a  three¬ 
fold  personality  in  the  concrete  forms  of  God  the  Father,  God 
the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost.  Many  earnest  inquirers 
are  sensible  of  a  certain  incongruity  between  this  mode  of 
speaking  and  the  teaching  of  Scripture,  and,  we  may  add,  the 
teaching  also  of  the  Apostles’  and  Nicene  Creeds,  as  well  as  of 
tlie  best  and  most  authoritative  Fathers  of  the  Oriental  Church. 
Holy  Scripture  and  primitive  theology  undoubtedly  regard  the 
Divine  Essence  as  in  itself  personal,  naming  it  at  once  God 
and  Father.  They  agree  in  speaking  of  the  heavenly  Father 
as  (not  the  first  member  in  a  series  of  divine  evolutions,  but) 
Himself  God,  holding  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  in  Himself, 
Foils  totius  Feitatis,  the  spring  and  fountainhead  of  the  whole 
Deity  from  which  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  are  evermore  derived. 
This  point  is  one  of  decisive  significance  in  determining  the 
relations  between  the  divine  Persons,  and  leads  us  at  once 
into  the  midst  of  our  present  inquiry. 

We  propose  therefore  (A.)  to  examine  the  chief  Scripture 
testimonies  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  general,  viz.  those 
concerning  (a)  The  divine  Father,  (5)  The  Son,  (c)  Tlie  Holy 
I  Ghost,  and  (cl)  The  mutual  relations  of  the  divine  Persons, 

s  This  done,  we ‘propose  further  (B.)  to  examine  the  results  thus 

obtained  by  the  light  derived  from  the  history  of  religious 
thought  and  from  modern  philosophical  speculation,  and  to 
inquire  as  to  what  extraneous  supports  and  testimonies  may  be 
thus  afforded  them. 

j  A.  Scri2)ture  Testimonies  to  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity. — 

Are  then,  according  to  the  witness  of  Scripture,  Father,  Son, 
f  ^  and  Holy  Ghost  so  one  in  essence  that  Son  and  Spirit  are 

|!  O/-...  also  God  ?  And  are  they,  notwithstanding  this  essential 

ij  f .'v.  -  unity,  three  distinct  though  not  separated  subjects  (or  persons), 
I  having  each  His  own  knowledge  and  will  ?  These  are  our 

1;  first  questions.  The  former  point,  the  unity  of  the  Son’s 

I  essence  with  the  Father,  was  denied  by  Paul  of  Samosata  in 

I  the  third,  by  the  Arians  in  the  fourth  and  following  centuries, 

I  and  in  later  times  by  Unitarians  and  Pationalists.  The  latter, 


LECT.  IV.] 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 


245 


the  personal  distinctions  of  the  three  divine  hypostases,  were 
disputed  by  the  Sabellians  as  early  as  the  tliird  century.  They 
taught  that  the  one  God,  wdiile  manifesting  Himself  in  a  *  (ru 

threefold  relation  to  the  world,  now  as  Father,  now  as  Son,  and  ^  ^  'r<  ^  n 
now  as  Holy  Spirit,  had  nevertheless  remained  \vithin  Himself 
always  one  and  the  same ;  and  that  so,  what  we  call  the  Per¬ 
sons  of  the  Trinity  were  but  different  forms  of  divine  mani¬ 
festation  ; — a  view  which  has  often  reappeared  in  various 
shapes  in  modern  theology.  The  doctrine  of  Scripture  stands 
in  the  midst  between  these  two  parties ;  it  holds  last,  on  the 
one  hand,  the  unity  of  substance,  the  consubstantiality  of  Son 
and  Holy  Spirit  with  the  heavenly  Father,  and  on  the  other, 
their  personal  distinctness :  it  combines,  in  reterence  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  (as  we  have  seen  to  be  the  case  in 
reference  to  other  theories  concerning  the  divine  nature),  all 
the  various  elements  of  truth  which  human  systems  are  so 
prone  to  separate. 

(a)  And  first,  with  regard  to  God  the  Father,  He  is  the 
ultimate  cause  of  all  creation  (1  Cor.  viii.  6  ;  Eom.  xi.  36)  ; 
to  Him  the  whole  development  of  the  universe  is  due — He 
vjorheth  all  in  all  (1  Cor.  xii.  6),  and  the  goal  toward  which  it 
is  all  tending — that  God  may  he  all  in  all  (1  Cor.  xi.  28). 

He  is,  therefore,  the  only  Potentate  and  Lord  of  all  (1  Tim.  vi. 

15) ;  He  is  also  the  Author  of  all  redemption,  which,  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  His  will,  was  determined  from  all  eternity  (Eph.  i, 

4  ;  2  Tim.  i.  9,  10),  and  evolved  in  time.  He  is  therefore 
designated  simply  by  the  title  Saviour  (Luke  i.  47  ;  1  Tim. 
i.  1)  ;  by  Him  the  Son  is  sent,  and  from  Him  the  Paraclete 
proceeds  (John  iii.  16,  xiv.  16).  This  divine  Father,  while 
not  disdaining  to  enter  His  own  world  and  make  His  dwelling 
in  His  saints  (John  xiv.  23  ;  Acts  xvii.  27),  yet  remains 
eternally  unchangeable,  in  light  unapproachable,  the  only 
deathless  One  (1  Tim.  vi.  16),  the  only  Wise,  overruling  and 
disposing  all  events  by  His  holy  will  arnd  providence  (Kom. 
xvi.  27  ;  Matt.  xxiv.  36).  No  one  disputes,  indeed  no  one  can 
deny,  that  deity  and  divine  honour  are  in  Scripture  assigned 
to  the  Father.  But  how  is  it  with  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  ? 

Here  the  variety  of  teaching  and  opinion  is  manifold.  We 
must  consider  the  Scripture  testimonies  more  in  detail.  And 
first  let  us  examine :  (5)  The  Scripture  testimony  to  the  con- 


246 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCPJPTUEE. 


[LECT.  17. 


suLstantiality  of  the  Son  Avith  the  Father.  The  very  title 
which  our  Lord  applies  to  Himself  (John  iii.  16,  18) — Son, 
and  onhj-bcgottcn  Son  of  God — compared  with  the  many  pas¬ 
sages  in  which  He  speaks  of  the  Father  in  heaven  as  His 
Father,  indicates  a  claim  to  stand  in  a  peculiar  filial  relation 
to  the  Father  such  as  no  mere  creature  can  aspire  to.  All 
attempts  to  deny  this,  and  to  make  out  that  the  Sonship  claimed 
bv  our  Lord  is  nothing  more  than  the  childlike  relation  which 
belongs  to  all  believers  (against  which,  compare  John  i.  12 
with  iv.  14  and  18),  are  plainly  refuted  by  the  observation, 
that  He  always  makes  a  clear  distinction  in  speaking  to  Flis 
disciples  bet^veen  your  Father  and  my  Father,  your  God  and 
my  God ;  that  He  never  places  Himself,  so  to  speak,  on  the 
same  line  with  them — never  speaks  of  OUK  Father  (Matt.  vi. 
8,  32,  xviii.  10,  xvi.  17,  xxvi.  53  ;  John  xx.  17) — (the  first 
words  of  the  Lord’s  Prayer  are  not  in  point  (Matt.  vi.  9),  for 
Christ  is  there  teaching  His  disciples  to  pray,  and  does  not 
include  Himself  with  them).  Moreover,  this  specific  filial 
relation  to  the  Father  is  indicated  in  those  places  where  our 
Lord  speaks  of  Himself  as  sent  by  the  Father,  and  coming  into 
the  world,  as  having  come  down  from  heaven,  and  as  the  Son 
of  man  who  is  in  heaven  (John  iii.  13,  comp.  iv.  31,  32,  vi. 
33,  50,  58,  viii.  23).  He  limits  at  the  same  time  His  own  pre¬ 
existence  :  compare  especially  John  viii.  58,  Before  Abraham 
was,  I  am  ;  which  is  not,  as  we  shall  see  more  fully  hereafter, 
to  be  understood  in  an  ideal  and  impersonal,  but  in  a  strictly 
personal  and  realistic  sense. 

In  accordance  with  this  claim  to  a  divine  origin,  we  find 
our  Lord  assuming  divine  authority — (But  I  say  unto  you) — • 
abrogating  not  merely  Eabbinical  but  Sinaitic  precepts  (Matt, 
v.  19,  9) — declaring  Himself  greater  than  tlie  temple.  Lord  of 
the  Sabbath,  more  than  Jonas  and  Solomon,  and  the  dispenser 
of  forgiveness  (Matt.  ix.  2,  6).  It  is  only  in  virtue  of  His 
self-consciousness  as  God  that  He  can  regard  Himself  as  a 
creditor  to  whom  the  sinner  is  indebted,  and  who,  in  His  own 
name,  vouchsafes  remission  (Luke  vii.  41-50).  God  alone  has 
the  right  to  judge  or  to  forgive  the  violation  of  His  image  in 
man  by  sin  :  were  Christ  not  one  with  God,  He  would  be 
guilty  of  blasphemy  in  assuming  such  power  (Matt.  ix.  2,  3). 
It  is  in  virtue  of  the  same  claim  to  a  divine  character  that  our 


LECT.  IV.] 


THE  DOCTEINE  OF  THE  TllINITY. 


247 


Lord  subordinates  love  to  one’s  neiglibonr  in  His  disciples  to 
love  towards  Himself — He  tiiat  loveth  father  or  mother  more 
than  me,  etc.  (Matt.  x.  37,  which  is  virtually  the  same  as  John 
X.  30).  And  it  is  as  being  omniscient  and  pre-existent  that  He 
declares  that  He  will  hereafter  come  again  as  Judge  (Matt.  vii. 
21-23,  xxiv.  30,  xxv.  31,  etc.).  It  is  as  one  with  the  omni¬ 
present  Lather  that  He  promises  to  be  with  His  disciples 
everywhere  and  always  to  the  world’s  end  (Matt,  xxviii.  20 
compared  with  John  xiv.  18).  It  will  be  observed  that  these 
proofs  are  in  the  first  instance  taken  from  the  earlier  Gospels, 
which  modern  criticism  would  fain  separate  by  a  wide  gulf 
from  that?  of  St.  John.  How  impossible  it  is  to  do  so  is 
evident  from  one  example.  Our  Lord,  in  St.  Matt.  xi.  27, 
claims  to  stand  in  a  position  so  unique  to  the  heavenly  Lather 
that  none  can  know  the  Lather  but  Himself,  or  through  His 
mediation,  and  none  know  Him  but  the  Lather  only.  The 
whole  Gospel  of  St.  John  may  be  regarded  as  an  illustration  of 
this  one  utterance  (cf.  John  iii.  35,  xiv.  6,  xvii.  25). 

It  is  only  like  that  knows  like.  It  is  only  in  virtue,  of 
unity  of  essence  that  the  Son  thus  knows  the  Lather,  and  is 
known  only  of  Him.  We  need  not,  therefore,  wonder  to  hear 
Him  saying  in  the  fourth  Gospel :  I  and  my  Father  are  one ; 
I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me  (John  x.  30,  xiv. 
11,  20,  X.  38);  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father; 
and  claiming  with  the  Lather  one  undivided  dignity,  that  they 
all  may  honour  the  Son  even  as  they  honour  the  Father  (John 
V.  23,  xiv.  13) — a  claim  refuting  in  the  most  complete  way 
those  who  would  deny  adoration  to  be  due  to  our  Lord  (com¬ 
pare  Luke  xxiv.  52).  There  is  one  will  and  one  woek 
(John  v.  30,  19-21,  xi.  41,  etc.),  as  there  is  one  love  (xiv. 
21,  xvii.  26)  of  the  Lather  and  the  Son.  And,  therefore,  the 
Son’s  return  to  the  glory  which  He  had  loith  the  Father  before 
the  ivorld  luas  (John  xvii.  5),  is  a  glorification  ivith  the  Father 
such  as  no  creature  can  attain  to  (John  iii.  13,  viii.  21,  23, 
xiii.  32,  33).  He  returns  to  a  state  in  which  He  is  the  sender 
of  the  Spirit,  even  as  the  Lather  is  (John  xiv.  26,  xv.  26  ; 
Luke  xxiv.  49), — that  Spirit  who  will  take  the  substance  of 
His  witness  from  the  things  of  the  Son,  and  will  glorify  the 
Son  (John  xvi.  13-15)  on  earth,  even  as  the  Son  once  glorified 
the  Lather  (xvii.  4)  in  His  life  here. 


243 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCPJPTUllE. 


[lECT.  IV. 


But  if  this  witness  of  our  Lord  concerning  Himself,  and, 
indeed,  the  very  terms  Son  of  God  and  Only-hegotten,  justify 
the  inference  of  His  consnbstantiality  with  the  Father,  they  no 
less  teach  Flis  derivation  from,  dependence  on,  and  subordina¬ 
tion  to,  the  Father,  albeit  in  co-equal  Godhead.  The  Father 
hath,  indeed,  committed  to  the  Son  all  that  He  hath ;  but  one 
thing  He  could  not  impart,  His  own  paternity,  otherwise  the 
Son  Avould  have  ceased  to  be  Son.  The  Father  is  the  eternal 
nnbeginning  archetype,  the  Son  the  co-eternal  perfect  image  of 
the  Father.  When  it  is  said  that  “the  Father  hath  given  to 
tlie  Son  to  have  life  in  Himself,”  the  meaning  is,  that  the  life 
of  Godhead  which  the  Son  possesses  is,  as  compared  with  the 
highest  life  among  the  creatures,  original,  creative,  and  arche¬ 
typal ;  but  as  compared  with  the  Father,  it  is  still  something 
given  and  received :  “  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  Himself  but 
what  He  seeth  the  Father  do”  (John  v.  19);  “My  Father  is 
greater  than  I”  (John  xiv.  28);  “I  ascend  to  my  God  and 
your  God”  (John  xx.  17).  Even  in  the  heavenly  glory  the 
Father  is  still  His  God. 

^  The  apostolic  testimonies  in  other  parts  of  the  Xew  Testa¬ 
ment  conduct  ns  to  the  same  result  as  these  utterances  of  our 
Lord  contained  in  the  Gospel.  They  establish  botli  His  con- 
substantiality  with  the  Father  and  His  filial  subordination. 
We  will  refer  to  only  one  or  two  of  the  most  important  pas¬ 
sages.  First,  then,  our  Lord’s  personal  pre-existence  is  clearly 
taught  by  St.  Paul  (Col.  i.  16,  17),  “He  is  before  all  things” 
(compare  His  own  I  AM  in  John  viii.  58) ;  and  His  consub- 
stantial  dignity  by  the  same  apostle  (Phil.  ii.  G),  Bcivg  in  the 
form  of  God ;  where  the  reference  is  not  to  any  manifestation 
of  the  Godhead  in  the  days  of  His  flesh  (when  “  the  form  ” 
which  He  took  upon  Him  rvas  that  “  of  a  servant  ”),  but  His 
position  from  eternity.  And  as  a  consequence  of  this,  we  find 
that  even  in  His  human  nature  God  is  immanent,  that  in 
Him  “dwelt  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily”  (Col.  ii.  9; 
2  Cor.  v.  19  ;  1  Tim.  iii.  16). 

This  unique  and  pre-existent  unity  of  essence  beGveen  the 
Father  and  the  Son  is  wonderfully  taught  by  St.  John  in  the 
prologue  of  His  Gospel:  In  the  hcginning  (compare  i.  1),  i.e. 
before  all  created  things,  and  when  creation  itself  began,  was 
the  Word,  the  Logos,  i.e.  divine  utterance  or  speech,  and  not 


LECT.  IV.] 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 


249 


merely  divine  inward  tlionglit  or  reason  (Xoyo?  TrpocfioptKO'; 
as  well  as  Xdyo?  evBcaOeros).  This  Word  was  God’s  sell- 
manifestation  by  which  He  was  preparing  to  hold  communion 
with  His  creatures.  But  before  any  of  these  came  into  exist¬ 
ence  this  Word  was  with  God,  or,  more  accurately,  was  to¬ 
wards  God,  i.c.  resting  in  and  clinging  to  Him  by  a  natural 
tendency  (compare  the  like  remarkable  expression  in  ver.  18, 
the  Only-begotten  in,  or  rather  into,  the  bosom  of  the  Father), 
From  this  it  is  evident  that  the  Son  in  His  pre-existent  state 
was  personally  or  hypostatically  distinct  from  the  Father. 
What  follows  shows  not  less  clearly  that  He  was  consub- 
stantial  with  Him  :  And  the  Word  ivas  God,  i.c.  of  nature 
equal  and  one  with  the  Father.  And  that  explains  how  St. 
Paul  could  speak  of  Christ  as  not  only  more  than  man  (Gal. 
i.  1),  but  also  (as  the  best  interpreters  of  Eom.  ix.  5  allow) 
as  “God  over  all”  (comp.  Tit.  ii.  13,  Heb.  i.  8.  9,  Eph.  v.  5, 
John  XX.  28,  Luke  xxiv.  52,  and  the  adoration  of  the  Lamb^ 
liev.  V.  11,  12). 

But  the  apostles  no  less  clearly  teach  the  filial  subordina¬ 
tion  of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  both  in  His  pre-existence  before 
creation  and  in  His  glorification  now  (cf  Fleb.  i.  3,  Acts 
vii.  55,  Rom.  viii.  34,  Heb.  x.  12),  yea,  and  even  in  the  con¬ 
summation  of  an  after  eternity  (1  Cor.  xv.  28). 

All  this  teaching  is  of  great  importance,  from  its  bearing  on 
the  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Christ,  it  tells  us,  has 
occupied  from  eternity  a  relation  of  mediatorship  between 
God  and  the  universe.  The  very  expression  “  only-begotten  ” 
indicates  this.  For  if  “begotten”  refers  to  a  transcendent 
process  within  the  Godhead  before  all  worlds,  the  “  only  ” 
refers  to  the  world  of  creatures  which  was  to  follow.  The 
divine  Word  or  Logos  had  not  only  an  imeard  tendency  (as 
explained  above)  towards  the  Godhead,  but  also  an  onhmrd 
one  towards  the  universe  and  the  work  of  creation.  There¬ 
fore  St.  John  in  his  prologue  goes  on  to  say,  “All  things  were 
made  through  Him,  and  witliout  Him  was  made  nothing” 
(chap.  i.  4).  The  full  apostolic  teaching  is,  +hat  creation 
is  a  work  of  the  Father  done  through  the  Son  (1  Cor.  viii.  6  ; 
2  Pet.  iii.  5  ;  Col.  i.  1 6).  The  Son  is  not,  as  such,  the  final 
Cause,  but  the  Divine  co-equal  Instrument  of  creation.  He 
is  also  its  Motive — the  Heir  of  all  things,  because  all  things 


250 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCRIPTUEE. 


[LECT.  IV. 


were  made  for  Him,  under  whom,  as  its  Head,  the  All  is  finally 
to  he  gathered  (Heb.  i.  2,  3  ;  Eph.  i.  10).  As  the  immediate 
support  of  all  life  in  the  world  of  creatures.  He  is  not  Himself 
a  creature,  but  yet  “the  First-born  of  all  creation”  (Col.  i.  15, 
cf.  Eev.  iii.  14).  This  last  expression — “First-born  of”  (or 
“  before  ”)  “  all  creation,”  or  “  every  creature  ” — teaches  three 
things  :  His  derivation  from  the  Father,  His  essential  unlike- 
ness  to  all  creatures  (born,  not  made),  and  at  the  same  time 
His  mediatorial  relation  towards  them.  And  so  we  see  how, 
in  the  scriptural  idea  of  the  divine  generation,  it  forms  as  it 
were  a  bridge  to  the  work  of  creation.  The  eternal  Son  goes 
forth  from  the  Father’s  bosom  as  the  archetype  of  the  world 
that  is  to  be,  and  specially  as  the  future  Life  and  Light  of 
man  (John  i.  4,  viii.  12). 

Moreover  all  these  witnesses  of  Christ  and  the  apostles 
prove  no  less  clearly  the  distinct  personality  of  the  Son  of 
God.  Unity  with  the  Father  is  not  identity  with  Him.  The 
very  word  “  with  God  ”  implies  personal  distinction.  And  it 
needs  hardly  to  notice  how  in  His  earthly  life  our  Lord,  when 
most  strongly  asserting  His  oneness  with  the  Father,  yet 
never  puts  this  personal  distinction  out  of  view  :  “  I  and  my 
Father  are  one;”  and  yet,  “  My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and 
I  worlc.”  From  His  first  utterance  in  the  temple  to  His  last 
upon  the  cross.  He  always  speaks  of  the  Father  as  a  distinct 
person  from  Himself.  And  so  also  He  speaks  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  another  Comforter,  as  His  future  representative  in 
the  world  (John  xiv.  16,  xvi.  14,  etc.),  as  sent  by  Him  from 
the  Father,  and  therefore  as  again  a  distinct  peT.’son  from 
Himself.  And  it  is  evident  from  every  page  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  that  these  personal  distinctions  were  not  effaced 
by  His  return  to  glory. 

One  important  result  at  which  we  arrive  is  plainly  this : 
So  surely  as  our  Lord  describes  Himself  as  one  with  the 
Father,  though  yet  personally  distinct  and  derived  from  Him, 
so  surely  as  He  speaks  -of  Himself  as  not  only  the  teacher  and 
pattern  of  divine  love,  but  also  as  the  Lord  and  Master  of  the 
hearts  of  all  men, — so  surely  must  His  equality  and  unity  with 
the  Father,  along  with  any  personal  distinction,  be  of  an  in¬ 
finitely  closer  and  more  intimate  kind  than  that  between  any 
creaturely  offspring  and  its  earthly  parent.  (Gess.) 


LECT.  IV.]  THE  DOCTEINE  OF  THE  TrJNITV.  251 

And  another  result  is,  that  if  the  well-known  definition  of 
the  Athanasian  Creed,  “  In  this  Trinity  there  is  none  before 
or  after,  nothing  greater  or  less,”  must  be  regarded  as  a  one¬ 
sided  and  inadequate  statement  of  the  truth,  ignoring  as  it 
seems  to  do  the  filial  subordination,  so  much  more  must  we 
pronounce  the  teaching  of  Unitarianism  and  Eationalism  as 
altogether  antiscriptural  in  its  denial  of  His  co-equal  con- 
substantial  Godhead. 

(c)  A  similar  result  would  also  follow  from  an  inr^estiga- 
tion  of  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Some  ancient  heretics  regarded  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  nationalism 
does  now,  as  a  mere  impersonal  energy  or  virtue  ot  the  divine 
nature ;  others  (like  the  Arians),  as  a  created  Being ;  some 
modern  rationalists  apply  the  term  to  the  religious  instinct 
of  the  existing  Christian  community.  The  Church  teaches 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  divine  person.  To  which  of  these 
forms  of  doctrine  does  Holy  Scripture  bear  witness  as  the 
true  ? 

Hone  can  deny  that  Scripture  assigns  to  the  Holy  Ghost 
attributes  and  operations  which  are  simply  divine — omniscience 
(1  Cor.  ii.  10),  omnipresence  (Ps.  cxxxix.  7),  creative  energy 
(Ps.  xxxiii.  6  ;  Gen.  i.  2).  In  Heb.  ix.  2,  He  is  called  simply 
“the  eternal  Spirit;”  in  1  Pet.  iv.  14,  “Spirit  of  God,”  and 
“Spirit  of  glory;”  in  1  Cor.  ii.  10,  He  is  said  to  “search  the 
deeps  of  God.”  There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  Scripture  testi¬ 
mony  to  His  Godhead,  but  how  does  the  case  stand  as  to 
Scripture  teaching  concerning  His  personality  ? 

How  here  it  must  be  first  observed,  that  as  in  the  natural 
world  the  Spirit  of  God  is  represented  as  the  quickening 
energy  which  imparts  life  and  form  and  power  of  develop¬ 
ment  to  what  before  was  dead  and  formless  matter,  so  in  the 
spiritual  world  He  is  the  life-giving  influence  for  the  soul  of 
man,  and  the  imparter  to  it  of  spiritual  lile  and  true  person¬ 
ality  (Gen.  ii.  7).  This  life  He  can  at  all  times  quicken  and 
renew,  and  through  Him  it  is  that  the  believer  becomes  first 
a  person  and  then  a  child  of  God.  Is  it  not  a  priori  probable 
that  He  from  whom  the  principle  of  personality  comes  should 
be  Himself  a  person  ? 

F urther,  fcrsonal  attributes  are  constantly  assigned  in  Holy 
Scripture  to  the  Holy  Spirit — self-consciousness,  knowledge 


252 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCraPTUEE. 


[LECT.  IV. 


will,  self-determination,  speech,  and  action.  So,  when  the 
Spirit  is  spohen  of  as  “  searching  all  things,”  as  “  only  knowing 
what  is  in  God”  (1  Cor.  ii.  11),  as  the  “other  Comiorter” 
who  “  convinces,”  “  teaches,”  “  brings  to  remembrance,”  “  leads 
into  all  truth,”  “takes  of  the  things  of  Jesus  and  shows  them 
to  believers,”  and  so  “glorifies  Christ  in  them”  (John  xiv. 
16,  28,  xvi.  7,  8,  13-15);  when  it  is  said  of  Him  that  He 
aids  our  prayers  by  “  making  intercession  for  us  with  groan- 
ings  that  cannot  be  uttered”  (Rom.  viii.  26), — all  this  is  unin¬ 
telligible  without  assuming  personal  self-consciousness  in  the 
divine  agent.  And  again,  when  He  is  said  to  be  grieved 
(Eph.  iv.  30),  lied  to  (Acts  v.  3),  blasphemed  (Matt.  xii.  31), 
to  be  the  Lord  and  Distributer  of  heavenly  gifts,  imparting  to 
each  man  severally  as  He  will  (1  Cor.  xii.  11),  to  speak  and 
witness  in  the  disciples  (Matt.  x.  20;  Rom.  viii.  16),  and 
even  to  speak  to  them  in  the  first  person  (Acts  xiii.  2  : 
“  Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul  ”),  personal  feeling,  will, 
and  action  are  evidently  attributed  to  Him. 

It  is,  indeed,  often  noticed  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  spoken  of 
as  a  gift  (Acts  ii.  38  ;  Heb.  vi.  4),  as  “power  from  on  high” 
(Luke  xxiv.  49)  with  which  the  first  disciples  were  to  be 
endowed ;  and  this,  it  is  argued,  is  incompatible  with  person¬ 
ality.  But  so  Christ  Himself,  we  reply,  is  spoken  of  as  the 
gift  of  God  (John  iii.  16,  iv.  10);  and  the  Distributer  of 
heavenly  gifts  cannot  Himself  be  a  gift  in  a  neutral  or  material, 
but  only  in  a  personal  sense.  It  is  only  as  being  the  per¬ 
sonal  principle  of  all  the  powders  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
not  merely  as  a  single  power  or  divine  property,  that  the 
Spirit  can  be  co-ordinated,  as  in  1  Cor.  xii.  4-6,  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son.  It  is  only  as  a  person  distinct  from  the 
Father  tliat  He  can  make  intercession  in  the  hearts  of  be¬ 
lievers  (Rom.  viii.  26). 

A  question  is  sometimes  asked  :  If  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
poured  out  upon  and  imparted  to  so  many  thousands  of  be¬ 
lievers,  can  it,  in  this  distribution  and  manifold  division,  be 
one  and  the  same  person  ?  The  solution  is  found  in  the 
divine  omnipresence  of  the  Spirit.  Is  not  our  Lord  Himself 
spoken  of  as  dwelling  in  individual  saints  (2  Cor.  xiii.  5  ;  Gab 
ii.  20),  without  any  thought  of  denying  His  distinct  per¬ 
sonality  ?  And  when  we  consider  that  it  belongs  to  the  very 


LECT.  IV.] 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 


253 


idea  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  He  should  be  the  principle  of 
unity  in  the  divine  attributes,  and  that  it  is,  as  it  were,  the 
law  of  His  being  that  He  should  be  self-distributing  and  self- 
imparting,  we  see  at  once  how  natural  it  is  for  Him  to  dwell 
in  a  multitude  of  spiritual  homes.  And  therefore  He  is 
represented,  in  this  sell-division  and  innate  disposition  to  self- 
impartation,  as  “  the  seven  Spirits  before  the  throne  of  God,” 
“  sent  out  into  all  the  earth  ”  (Eev.  i.  4,  iv.  5).  These 
“  seven  Spirits”  are  further  said  (Isa.  xi.  1,  2)  to  “rest  upon” 
“the  rod  of  the  stem  of  Jesse,”  as  manifold  and  yet  as  One — 
the  Holy  Sinrit  of  the  Hew  Testament  which  comes  to  us 
from  Him  as  the  Spirit  of  Jesus,  through  one  and  the  same 
W’ith  the  personal  and  consubstantial  Spirit  of  the  Father. 

In  heaven,  then,  the  Holy  Spirit  appears  as  a  person,  the 
personal  principle  or  unity  of  the  divine  powers ;  on  earth 
He  is  manifested  to  us  as  a  multiplicity  of  gifts  (Acts  ii.  38). 
But  even  these  “  gifts  ”  have  something  “  personal  ”  in  them. 
They  dwell  in  us  without  being  lost  or  confounded  with  our 
personality.  The  Spirit  speaks  to  the  heart  of  the  believer, 
“  bears  witness  with  our  spirit,”  and  even  speaks  from  us  to 
the  world  without  (Matt.  x.  20). 

But  at  the  same  time  He  is  and  remains  very  God,  con- 
substantial  with  the  Father  and  the  Son.  This  is  evident  not 
only  from  what  wms  said  above,  but  also  from  the  numerous 
passagGkS  of  Scr>pture  in  wdiich  He  is  spoken  of  as  the  principle 
of  the  new  birth  and  source  of  our  sanctification  (cf.  1  Thess. 
i.  5  ;  1  Cor.  ii.  4,  5;  John  iii.  5  folk;  Bom.  ii.  29,  viii.  9, 
v.  5,  xiv.  17 ;  1  Cor.  xii.  3,  13  ;  1  John  ii.  27,  iii.  24;  Acts 
vii.  51,  xix.  2-5),  even  as  the  same  is  said  of  the  Father  and 
the  Son.  Those  who  are  born  of  the  Spirit  are  also  born  of 
God  ;  those  who  lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  lie  also  to  God.  Christ, 
too,  identifies  His  own  operation  with  that  of  the  Spirit.  The 
coming  of  the  Paraclete  is  His  coming  likewise  (John  xiv. 
16-18).  That  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost  should  be 
the  only  unpardonable  sin  is  a  clear  proof  that  He  cannot  in 
dignity  be  less  than  God. 

And  thus  we  arrive  at  the  like  result  with  regard  to  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  that  which  appeared  to  us  the  doctrine  of 
Scripture  in  regard  to  the  Son.  Consubstantial  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  He  is  yet  personally  distinct  from  them, 


254 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCEIPTUEE. 


[LECT.  IV. 


and  in  a  certain  way  subordinate,  from  being  from  Botli 
derived  and  from  Both  proceeding.  “  He  speaks  not  of  Him¬ 
self,  but  that  which  He  hears ;  ”  He  takes  of  the  fuluess  of 
Christ  to  impart  to  us  (John  xvi.  13,  14).  His  coming  to  us 
is  dependent  on  the  Lord’s  completion  of  the  Lord’s  redeeming 
work  and  His  entrance  into  glory  (John  vii.  39,  xvi.  7).  He 
is  sent  by  Him  from  the  Father.  And  as  in  the  kingdom  of 
grace,  so  in  the  natural  and  moral  world  He  is  the  principle 
of  communication  between  the  Creator  and  the  creatures — the 
breath  of  life  from  God  in  the  world. 

(d)  We  conclude  this  investigation  with  a  brief  review  of  a 
few  passages  of  Scripture,  in  which  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
is  contained  as  a  whole,  in  which  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost  are  spoken  of  together. 

The  received  dogmatic  theology  of  the  Church  distinguishes 
between  an  essential  (immanent  Ontological)  Trinity  of  per¬ 
sons  in  the  Godhead  and  an  Economical  Trinity,  i.e.  a  three¬ 
fold  manifestation  or  self-rev  elation  of  the  one  God  to  us. 
The  Church  believes  in  and  affirms  both.  But  many  theo¬ 
logians  in  the  present  day,  and  among  them  not  a  few  sincere 
believers  in  revelation,  deny  tlie  scriptural  authority  of  the 
former,  while  ail  receive  and  acknowledge  the  latter. 

Leaving  on  one  side  for  the  present  this  point  of  contro¬ 
versy,  we  Mull  first  inquire  how  far  the  testimony  of  Scripture 
supports  the  essential  features  in  the  doctrine  of  the  -Church 
concerning  the  personal  distinctness  and  yet  real  unity  and  con- 
substantiality  of  God  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Lloly  Spirit. 

The  fundamental  scriptural  authority  for  the  whole  doctrine 
is  the  formula  of  baptism  (klatt.  xxviii.  19) :  “  Baptizing 
them  in  (or  into)  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.”  That  what  is  here  spoken  of  is  a  baptism 
into  communion  with  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  all  sound  exegesis 
must  allow.  And  therefrom  must  follow,  in  the  first  place, 
that  by  these  terms  cannot  be  meant  three  successive  phases 
of  development  (Sabellianism),  but  three  contemporaneous 
distinctions  in  the  divine  nature.  And  further,  we  are 
warranted  in  drawing  a  threefold  conclusion :  (1)  Tlrat  these 
three  distinct  manifestations  must  be  personal.  There  is  no 
instance  in  Scripture  of  an  action  being  performed  in  the 
name  of  any  abstra(t  thing,  but  only  of  a  personal  subject. 


LECT.  IV.] 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 


215 


]\roreover,  it  would  be  impossible  to  enter  into  communion 
with  any  but  a  person.  (2)  That  these  three  persons  are 
co-equal  and  divine.  They  are  named  together  on  equal 
terms,  and  the  same  divine  honour  is  accorded  to  each  of 
them.  (Especially  significant  is  here  the  co-equal  divine  per¬ 
sonality  assigned  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Ho  one  will  deny  that 
Father  and  Son  are  terms  properly  applied  only  to  distinct 
persons  ;  but  how  with  such  could  an  impersonal  power  or 
virtue  be  associated  in  the  way  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
here?)  And  (3)  the  singular  term  “in  the  name”  indicates 
that  these  three  persons  are  yet  essentially  one,  not  three 
different  beings  or  se]3arate  individuals.  The  same  divine 
name  manifests  itself  as  Father  in  the  Father,  as  Son  in  the 
Son,  as  Holy  Ghost  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  .Then  is  unity  with¬ 
out  singularity,  consubstantiality  along  with  personal  distinc¬ 
tions,  distinction  wdthout  separation. 

Another  Trinitarian  passage  is  2  Cor.  xiii.  13:“  The  grace 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  love  of  God  (“  the  God,”  i.e. 
God  the  Father),  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  be 
with  you  all.”  Compare  this  with  1  Cor.  xii.  4-6,  where 
manifold  “  gifts  ”  are  associated  with  “  one  Spirit,”  manifold 
“ ministrations ”  with  “  one  Lord”  Christ  (Eph.  iv.  11),  and 
manifold  “  operations  ”  with  “  one  God  ”  (the  Father)  who 
worketh  all  in  all;  and  with  Eph.  iv.  4-G,  which  speaks  of 
one  Spirit,  one  Lord,  one  God  and  Father  of  all.  These 
passages  compared  together  prove  what  we  have  already  estab¬ 
lished  by  other  considerations,  that  in  the  doctrine  of  Scripture 
God  the  Father  is  the  source  and  well-spring  of  the  whole 
Godhead  {Fans  totius  Dcitatis),  of  that  of  the  Son,  and  of  that  of 
the  Spirit,  who  are  not  separate  existences,  but  in  the  Father 
and  from  Him.  Compare  also  1  Pet.  i.  1,  2,  where  the  fore¬ 
knowledge  and  predetermination  of  the  Father  is  represented 
as  the  source  and  mainspring  of  the  whole  work  of  grace. 
The  same  thing  is  taught  in  our  original  passage,  2  Cor. 
xiii.  13.  The  love  of  God  the  Father  is  the  source  of  all 
grace,  which  manifests  itself  in  the  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ ;  and  the  product  of  this  grace  and  love  is  the  com¬ 
munion  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

And  if  with  these  and  other  Trinitarian  passages  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  (such  as  Eev.  i.  4,  5  and  Kom.  xi.  36)  we  compare  the 


256 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCPJPTUEE. 


[LECT.  IV. 


Gospel  narratives  which  have  a  specially  Trinitarian  character, 
— such  as  the  Annunciation  (Luke  i.  3  5), and  the  Lord’s  Baptism, 
in  which  the  sinless  one,  who  had  placed  Himself  in  fellow¬ 
ship  with  sinners  for  their  salvation,  is  raised,  as  it  were,  by 
the  Bather’s  voice,  and  introduced  by  the  illapse  of  the  Spirit 
into  the  “  communion  ”  of  the  Trinity, — we  shall  be  in  a  condi¬ 
tion  to  form  a  judgment  in  the  controversy  between  those  who 
regard  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  expressing  eternal  and 
essential  distinctions  in  the  divine  nature,  and  those  who 
regard  the  divine  persons  as  mere  economical  manifestations 
of  the  Holy  One  in  His  relation  to  ourselves. 

How,  first  of  all,  it  is  clear,  and  allowed  on  all  sides,  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  rests  upon,  and  is  derived  from, 
o-reat  facts  of  divine  revelation.  It  is  because  God  has 

O 

revealed  Himself  to  us  as  Bather,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  that 
we  believe  in  a  triune  God.  The  very  form  of  the  Apostles’ 
and  Hicene  Creed  proves  this.  The  divine  name  in  the 
baptismal  formula  is  a  threefold  name  of  revelation  as  to 
God’s  relation  to  us.  And  so  the  love  of  God  (the  Bather)  in 
2  Cor.  xiii.  13,  in  connection  with  the  grace  (of  the  Son)  and 
the  communion  of  the  Spirit  which  follow,  points  in  the  first 
instance  to  the  relation  in  which  He  reveals  Himself  as 
standing  to  the  world.  In  all  these  -ways  we  have  undoubtedly 
a  trinity  of  revelation  (an  economical  trinity). 

But  it  cannot,  on  the  other  hand,  be  denied  that  in  Holy 
Scripture  some  passages  may  be  found  which  point  to  the 
existence  of  real  internal  distinctions  in  the  divine  nature, 
that  is,  to  a  trinity  of  hypostatic  existence  (an  Ontological 
Trinity).  The  uncreated  AYord  or  Logos  is  before  all  worlds 
with”  or  “  towards”  (tt/io?)  God,  and  sinking  as  it  were  into 
(eh)  the  Bather’s  bosom.  And  the  same  inwardly  directed 
tendency  tov/ards  “  the  deeps  of  the  Godhead  ”  is  predicated  of 
the  divine  Spirit  (1  Cor.  ii.  10).  The  very  names  of  Bather, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  though  in  the  first  instance  names  of  a 
trinity  of  revelation,  do,  if  expressive  of  a  real  revelation, 
indicate  real  internal  distinctions  in  the  divine  nature.  And 
so  also  in  our  Lord’s  Baptism  we  have  not  only  a  divine 
revelation  made  to  us,  and  a  link  in  the  chain  of  the  works 
of  redeeming  love,  but  we  also  see  the  divine  persons  acting 
and  reacting  one  on  the  other. 


LECT.  IV.] 


THE  LOCTEINE  OF  THE  TEIXITY. 


257 


The  conclusion  at  which  we  arrive  is  this :  If  the  teachinsr 

O 

of  Scripture  is  in  the  main  concerned  with  the  divine  relations 
to  us,  and  its  Trinity  is  therefore  in  the  main  a  Trinity  of 
revelation,  it  is  yet  going  much  too  far  to  say  that  it  does 
not  contain  expressive  hints  of  a  real  internal  ontological 
Trinity.  And  this  latter  has  a  very  deep  interest  for  Specula¬ 
tive  Theology. 

But  we  may  surely  ask  further.  Is  it  then  necessary,  or 
even  rational,  to  make  so  broad  a  distinction  between  this 
external  and  this  internal  Trinity?  If  God  reveal  Himselt  to 
the  world  as  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spu’it,  is  it  not  because  He 
IS  what  He  reveals  Himself  as  being?  The  Trinity  ot  revela¬ 
tion  points  to  a  Trinity  of  inward  being  which  it  thus  makes 
manifest.  The  one  implies  and  presupposes  the  other.  The 
eternal  generation  of  the  Son  and  procession  of  the  Spirit 
involve  a  divine  impulse  from  eternity  to  creation  and  re- 
demj)tion.  And  in  like  manner  the  Trinity  of  revelation  has 
ontological  elements.  If  love  be  the  essence  of  the  divine 
nature,  the  impulse  to  revelation  is  inherent  in  it.  In  other 
words :  God’s  actions  without  imply  inward  workings  and 
relations,  and  His  inward  actions  and  relations  are  the  ne¬ 
cessary  premises  and  preparations  for  His  outward  working. 
In  revelation  God  reveals  Himself,  and  the  impulse  of  self¬ 
manifestation  belongs  to  His  inmost  being. 

The  comparative  silence  of  Holy  Scripture  as  to  the  onto¬ 
logical  code  of  Trinitarian  doctrine  is  easily  accounted  for  by 
the  considerations  already  offered,  as  to  the  self-hiding  as  well 
as  the  self-revealing  characteristics  of  the  divine  nature.  It 
is  naturally  the  latter  which  are  prominently  presented  to  us 
in  Holy  Scripture.  ___ 

But  before  we  proceed  to  the  final  result  of  what  has  been 
said  on  this  subject,  we  must  briefly  consider  an  objection 
which  has  seemed  to  many  to  militate  against  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity.  Why  is  nothing  said,  they  ask,  with  regard  to 
this  truth  in  the  Old  Testament  ?  Why  did  God  withhold 
for  4000  years  a  self-revelation  which  is  assumed  to  be  so 
essential  to  the  spiritual  good  of  His  creatures  ?  And  if  this 
were  indeed  the  case,  if  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  professes 
to  be  a  revelation  of  the  true  and  living  God,  there  were  no 
traces  of  this  truth,  we  might  indeed  be  seriously  shaken  as 

R 


258 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCTHPTUHE. 


[LECT.  IV. 


to  the  very  groundwork  of  Christian  doctrine.  But  a  closer 
examination  shows  that  it  is  not  so.  If  for  good  reasons  God 
was  pleased  to  witiihold  under  the  Old  Covenant  a  full  reve¬ 
lation  of  His  triune  nature,  He  gave  at  least  manifold  hints 
of  it  in  the  names  and  words  and  facts  of  the  ancient  Scrip¬ 
tures.  We  can  only  briefly  hint  at  some  of  these. 

jMany  passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  for  instance,  teach 
the  divinity  of  the  future  Messiah,  as  when  He  is  called  the 
Son  of  God  (Ps.  ii.  7  ;  Prov.  xxx.  4),  tlie  Branch  of  the  Lord 
(Isa.  iv.  2  ;  Zech.  iii.  8),  the  Lord  (Ps.  cx.  compared  with 
Matt.  xxii.  44),  God  (Ps.  xlv.  8),  Mighty  God  (Isa.  ix.  6 
comp.  X.  21) ;  His  pre-existence  is  hinted  at  (Mic.  v.  1  comp, 
with  Isa.  xlviii.  16),  and  an  eternal  post-existence  promised 
Him  (Dan.  vii.  14),  an  eternal  kingdom  and  an  eternal 
priesthood  (Ps.  cx.  4).  And  if  with  regard  to  the  Holy 
Spirit  many  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  do  not  go  beyond 
the  notion  of  a  divine  energy  or  influence,  it  cannot  surely  be 
denied  that  in 'others,  activities  are  ascribed  to  Him  which 
imply  personal  subsistence,  as  His  striving  (Gen.  vi.  3), 
speaking  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  2),  leading  (Ps.  cxliii.  10),  His  being 
made  grieved  and  made  angry  (Isa.  Ixiii.  10),  to  which  we  ’ 
have  so  many  parallels  in  the  New  Testament.  The  Spirit  of 
God,  moreover,  is  represented  in  the  Old  Testament  as  resting 
on  Messiah  in  His  sevenfold  eradiation  (Isa.  xi.  2),  and  as  not 
only  imparting  Himself  to  individuals  (Num.  xi.  25—29  ;  1 
Sam.  xix.  23;  2  Kings  ii.  9-15),  but  as  outpoured  on  the 
whole  people  of  the  redeemed  in  Messianic  times  (Isa.  xliv. 
3)  ;  as  the  Spirit  of  vision  and  prophecy  (Joel  ii.  28),  of 
inward  renewml  and  sanctification  (Ezek.  xxxvi.  27,  xxxix, 
29),  of  grace  and  prayer  (Zech.  xii.  10). 

These  are  only  hints,  but  they  are  enough  to  show  that  the 
Old  Testament  attributes  to  the  Messiah  predicates  which 
belong  to  no  mere  creature,  and  so  teaches  His  true  Godhead, 
while  it  ascribes  a  real  independent  activity  to  the  Holy 
Spirit.  And  there  are  also  numerous  indications  in  the  Old 
Testament  of  a  certain  plurality  in  the  divine  nature,  an 
organized  and  complex  unity,  a  mutual  indwelling  and  co¬ 
operation  ol  the  three  divine  hypostases. 

Such  an  indication  may  be  found  in  in  the  Hebrew  name 
lor  God,  Elohim.  The  plural  (as  is  well  known)  is  commonly 


LECT.  IV.] 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRIXITY. 


259 


used  with  a  singular  verb.  So  in  the  very  first  words  of 
Scripture  (Gen.  i.  1),  which  may  be  said  to  contain  the  first 
trace  of  the  doctrine  of  tlie  Trinity :  “  In  the  beginning 
Elohini  ”  (plural)  “  created  ”  (singular)  “  heaven  and  earth. 
This  is  hardly  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  hypothesis  of  a 
2^luralis  majestatis,  of  the  use  of  which  there  is  no  other  clear 
evidence  in  Scripture.  But  even  if  it  were  so,  the  plural  might 
still  be  regarded  as  indicating  an  internal  divine  plurality  of 
powers  and  forms  of  being.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  “  Us  ” 
in  Gen.  i.  26  and  iii.  22  (comp.  Gen.  xi.  7  and  Isa.  vi.  8). 
The  hypothesis  that  God  is  here  speaking  of  the  angels  as 
associated  with  Himself,  is  perfectly  inadmissible,  so  far,  at  any 
rate,  as  the  first  two  passages  are  concerned.  It  would  con¬ 
tradict  all  other  teachings  of  Scripture,  which  clearly  ascribe 
to  God  the  creation  of  mankind  without  any  intervention  of 
angelic  agencies  (Gen.  ii.  7-22  ;  Isa.  xl.  13  folk,  xliv.  24). 
AYe  may  say  indeed  of  Gen.  i.  1,  that  we  have  here  an  intima¬ 
tion  of  the  divine  plurality  in  unity,  and  unity  in  plurality ; 
that  all  subsequent  Trinitarian  developments  are  but  unfold¬ 
ings  of  what  is  here  presented  in  the  germ. 

Again,  consider  what  is  said  in  Scripture  of  God’s  creating 
all  things  by  His  Word  (cf.  John  i.  1-3),  and  by  His  Spirit 
moving  on  the  face  of  the  waters  (Gen.  i.  2).  Comp.  Bs.  xxxiii. 
C,  “  The  heavens  were  made  by  the  AVord  of  Jehovah,  and  all 
the  host  of  them  by  the  Spirit  of  His  mouth to  which  “  AY ord  ” 
and  “  Spirit”  the  “  Us”  of  Gen.  i.  26  must  be  referred,  and 
not  to  _  an  association  of  angels.  An  interpretation  to  which 
we  are  the  more  entitled,  inasmuch  as  several  places  in  the 
Old  Testament  refer  unmistakeably  to  twofold  and  threefold 
self-distinctions  in  the  divine  essence,  e.g.:  “The  Lord  caused 
it  to  rain  from  the  Lord  out  oi  heaven”  (Gen.  xix.  24);  “I 
liave  filled  Bezaleel  with  the  Spirit  of  God”  (Ex.  xxxi.  3), 
where  the  Lord  who  speaks  distinguishes  between  Himself  and 
God  (the  Father)  as  well  as  (the  Holy)  Spirit;  “The  Lord” 
(God  the  Father)  “  said  unto  my  Lord”  (Messiah,  son  of 
David,  who  at  the  same  time  is  David’s  Lord,  Bs.  cx.  1) ;  “0 
God,  hear  for  the  Lord’s  sake”  (Dan.  ix.  17) ;  and  especially 
Isa.  xlviii.  16  :  “From  the  time  that  it  took  place  there  am  I 
(Messiah,  the  servant  of  the  Lord),  and  now  the  Lord  God 
hath  sent  me,  and  His  Spirit.”  Compare  also  the  Lord’s 


THE  THEOLOGY  OE  SCEIPTUEE. 


260 


[lect.  IV. 


(Jeliovali’s)  proclamation  concerning  tlie  name  of  tlie  Lord 
(Ex.  xxxiv.  5-7). 

Moreover  the  Wohd  is,  in  the  Old  Testament,  Mediator  in 
the  Lord’s  redeeming  ^York  as  well  as  in  that  of  creation.  “  He 
sent  forth  His  Word  and  healed  them”  (Ps.  cvii.  20).  To 
which,  if  we  add  the  fore  cited  passages  Avherein  the  future 
Messiah  is  designated  as  the  Son  of  God,  we  have  the  Hew 
Testament  doctrine  of  the  JFord  made  Jlesh  in  germ  and 
early  development.  And  this  will  be  confirmed  by  observa¬ 
tion  of  the  divine  agency  in  the  history  of  the  Exodus,’  the 
type  of  the  redemption  under  the  Hew  Testament.  There  we 
see  the  Angel  of  Jehovah,  sent  by  God,  the  Father  of  His 
people  (Deut.  xxxii.  6),  to  lead  them  through  the  wilderness, 
as  the  angelic  and  quasi-human  organ  of  His  presence  (Ex. 
xxiii.  20,  21,  xxxiii.  14);  and  His  Spirit  poured  out  upon 
their  leaders,  Moses,  Aaron,  the  seventy  elders,  Joshua  (Hum. 
xi,  25,  xxvii.  18  ;  Heh.  ix.  20).  So  that  in  after  times  Isaiah 
could  describe  the  redemption  from  Egypt  as  tlie  work  of 
Jehovah,  of  His  Angel,  and  Llis  Spirit  (Isa.  Ixiii.  8-10).  This 
is  the  trinity  of  the  Old  Testament.  “  These  three  forms  of 
divine  manifestation  dominate  the  whole  of  its  history.” 
(Delitzsch,  Apologctih,  pp.  314  foil,  411,  420.) 

And  further,  these  observations  enable  us  to  trace  Trini¬ 
tarian  doctrine  in  the  Levitical  blessing  (Hum.  vi.  24-27), 
the  putting  of  the  threefold  sacred  name  on  the  children  of 
Israel :  “  The  Lord  bless  thee  and  keep  thee”  (God  the  Father, 
IMaker,  and  Preserver)  ;  the  Lord  make  His  face  to  shine  upon 
thee,  and  be  gracious  unto  thee  (God  the  Son,  the  Light  of 
the  world,  full  of  grace  and  truth)  ;  the  Lord  lift  up  His 
countenance  unto  tliee  and  give  thee  peace  (God  the  Holy 
Ghost,  who  brings  nearer  and  appropriates  to  us  the  divine 
grace  and  peace).  You  will  observe  how  here  we  have  an 
essential  unity  in  the  tlnice  repeated  Lord  (Jeliovah)  with 
diversity  of  operations.^  And  to  this  threefold  name  of  blessing 
liere  on  earth,  corresponds  the  thrice-repeated  Holy  of  the 
seraphim  in  the  heavenly  sanctuary  (Isa.  vi.  3).  When 
tlirourdiout  the  Old  Testament  we  find  God  calling  Himself 
the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob, — Abraham;  tlie  father 

'  This  point  has  been  more  fully  treated  in  the  author’s  Sermons,  entitled  Def 
Se(jen  cles  llerrn.  London,  1800. 


LEGT.  IV.] 


THE  DOCTl’JNE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 


2G1 


•who  was  willing  to  offer  up  his  only  son ;  Isaac,  the  son  who 
carried  the  wood  of  his  sacrifice,  and  suffered  himself  to  be  laid 
thereon  ;  and  Jacob,  the  founder  and  prototype  of  a  spiritual 
Israel, — have  we  not  here  a  prophetic  type  of  that  divine 
manifestation  in  which  God  gives  up  His  Son  as  a  sacrifice 
for  all,  and  sends  forth  His  Spirit  to  form  a  spiritual  people, 
and  so  reveals  the  sacred  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost? 

After  all  this,  we  surely  cannot  deny  that  Holy  Scripture 
from  the  very  beginning  exhibits  germs  of  Trinitarian  doctrine. 
But  tliese  germs  are  not  the  unfolded  flower.  A  clear 
developed  dogma  of  the  Trinity  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  that  for  good  reasons.  It  was  all-important 
under  that  dispensation,  that,  in  the  face  of  heathen  Folytheism, 
the  great  fundamental  truth  of  the  divine  unity  should  be 
impressed  on  the  religious  consciousness  of  God’s  ancient 
people :  “  Hear,  0  Israel ;  The  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord.” 
Too  plain  an  utterance  of  Trinitarian  doctrine  would  in  such 
times  have  obscured  the  truth  of  the  divine  unity,  and  misled 
into  Tritheism.  And  for  the  like  'pcedacjorjic  reasons  our  Lord 
did  not  at  first  reveal  the  triunity  of  the  divine  nature  to 
His  disciples.  It  was  not  till  they  had  learned  to  believe  in 
His  divine  Sonship,  and  in  some  measure  to  apprehend  His 
unity  with  the  Father  and  pre-existence,  that  Lie  could  speak 
to  them  of  the  divine  person  of  the  Second  Comforter ;  nay, 
it  was  not  till  He  had  proved  Himself  to  be  the  Fountain  of 
eternal  life  by  His  own  resurrection,  and  by  His  breathing  on 
the  apostles  had  kindled  in  their  hearts  the  fire  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  that  He  found  them  capable  of  receiving  the  divinest 
of  mysteries,  and  therefore  could  leave  behind  Him  a.^  a  pre¬ 
cious  heirloom  to  His  Church — as  the  deepest  revelation  of 
the  divine  nature,  as  the  one  foundation  of  Christian  faith, 
knowledge,  and  practice,  and  as  the  final  seal  and  crown  of  all 
His  teaching  while  here  on  earth — the  great  commission  :  “  Go 
into  all  the  world,  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations, 
baptizing  them  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.” 

The  objection,  therefore,  so  often  raised,  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  not  even  founded  on  Scripture,  is  itself  base¬ 
less.  From  the  first  of  its  pages  to  the  last.  Scripture  is  full 


263 


tup:  theology  of  scripture. 


[lect.  iy. 


of  indications  of  this  mystery;  from  the  description '  of  the 
work  of  creation  in  Gen.  i.  to  tliat  of  the  New  Jerusalem  in 
the  last  chapter  of  the  Apocalypse,  where  the  living  water 
(symbol  of  tlie  Spirit,  John  vii.  38,  39)  is  seen  issuing  from 
the  throne  of  God  and  of  the  Lamb.  Everywhere  we  hear 
hints  both  of  the  personal  distinctions  and  the  unity  of 
essence.  A  striking  indication  may  be  found  of  this  in  the 
observation,  that  whereas  each  divine  hypostasis  has  a  special 
work  and  mode  of  revelation  assigned  Him,  the  other  two 
are  throughout  associated  with  Him  in  its  discharge.  The 
creation  and  preservation  of  the  universe  is,  for  instance,  the 
special  work  and  revelation  of  God  the  Eather.  But  it  is  by 
the  Word  of  His  power  that  He  makes  and  upholds  all  things, 
and  by  His  Spirit  that  life  and  form  are  given  to  chaos,  and 
the  face  of  the  earth  continually  renewed.  The  special  work 
of  the  Son  is  redemption.  But  here,  too,  the  Father  sends 
and  constantly  co-operates  and  finally  receives  the  finished 
sacrifice  ;  and  here,  likewise,  the  Spirit  is  co-worker.'  It  is  by 
the  Spirit  that  the  eternal  Word  takes  upon  Him  our  nature, 
that  the  man  Christ  Jesus  is  anointed  at  His  baptism  and 
prepared  for  His  ministry,  that  He  offers  Himself  without 
spot  to  God  the  Eather,  and  rises  again  from  the  dead ;  and 
finally,  it  is  by  the  Spirit  taking  of  the  things  of  Christ  that 
His  redemption  is  applied  to  each  believer.  The  special 
M^ork  of  the  Spirit  is  sanctification ;  but  He  is  sent  forth  to 
that  work  by  the  Eather  and  by  the  Son,  and  it  is  the  Father’s 
will  and  the  Son’s  redemption  by  which  He  accomplishes  it. 
No  communion  with  one  divine  person  is  possible  for  man, 
without  a  like  fellowship  with  the  others.  He  that  hath  not 
the  Spirit  of  Christ  is  none  of  His ;  he  that  denieth  the  Son 
hath  not  the  Father  (Eom.  viii.  9  ;  1  Johnii.  23).  We  might 
perhaps  venture  to  express  this  unity  and  distinctness  of  the 
divine  persons  in  their  work  and  manifestations  by  three  cog¬ 
nate  predicates  of  our  own  Teutonic  speech,  and  that  almost 
as  neatly  in  English  as  in  German:  The  Father  is  hcilifj,  the 
Holy  One  ;  the  Son,  heilend,  the  Flealiug  One  ;  the  Spirit, 
hciUpend,  the  Hallowing  One.' 

And  here  we  see — a  remark  of  great  importance  in  respect 
to  the  reproach  of  Tritheisni  so  often  brought  against  Trini¬ 
tarian  doctrine — that  what  we  necessarily  represent  to  our 


LECT.  IV.] 


THE  DDCTEINE  OF  THE  TEIXITY. 


2G3 


own  minds,  and  to  others,  as  a  Trinitarian  froce^s,  is  really  in 
its  divine  eternal  ground  the  simultaneous  co-working  of  three 
co-eternal  divine  hypostases.  Speculatively  overstepping  the 
lines  actually  drawn  in  Scripture,  we  recognise  the  necessity  of 
the  conclirson  that  God  could  never  have  been  Father  without 
the  Son,  and  that,  therefore,  the  generation  of  the  Son  is  not 
only  before  time,  but  co-eternal  with  the  Godhead  of  the 
Father  ;  and  in  the  same  way,  that  the  procession  of  the  Spirit 
is  co-eternal  too.  We  recognise  also,  that  as  there  is  but  one 
God  who  manifests  in  one  work  the  one  eternal  counsel  of  His 
love,  and  that  by  revealing  Himself  as  Father,  Son,  and  Spii'it ; 
so  these  three  factors  constitute  by  their  mutual  indwelling 
and  co-workimr  the  self-consciousness  of  the  Godhead,  which 
is  not  to  be  thought  of  as  a  fourth  producing  them.  The 
teaching  of  the  Church  has  always  insisted  on  the  unity  of 
the  Godhead,  and  maintained  that  the  Father  is  not  onlj^God, 
but  the  source  also  of  the  Godhead,  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit 
{Foils  Deitatis),  and  thereby  has  cut  off  all  possible  basis  for  a 
charge  of  Trithcisiii. 

And  now,  to  gather  up  the  threads  of  the  whole  inquiry, 
the  Trinitarian  doctrine  of  Scripture  is  briefly  this :  The 
Father  is  simply  God,  the  God,  the  divine  subject,  the 
source  and  well-spring  of  the  Godhead  of  both  Son  and  Holy 
Spirit;  the  Son  is  God,  true  God,  in  hypostatic  distinction, 
though  derived  from  the  Father ;  and  the  Spirit  is  also  truly 
God  in  a  form  which  is  predicated  of  the  whole  divine  nature 
(for  God  is  a  Spirit,  John  iv.  24 ;  and  the  Lord  is  the  Spirit, 
2  Cor.  iii.  17).  but  also  in  hypostatic  distinction  from  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  by  whom  He  is  sent,  and  from  whom  He 
proceeds.  There  is  therefore  at  once  the  most  essential  unity 
and  a  threefold  hypostatic  distinction.  The  divine  nature 
remains  undivided ;  the  whole  Godhead  (^edr???)  is  in  the  Son 
and  in  the  Holy  Spirit— in  the  Son  (Logos)  as  God’s  owm  selL 
utterance,  in  the  S23irit  as  the  divine  self-consciousness,  And 
as  the  Son  is  the  uttered  thought  of  the  Father  concerning 
Himself,  so  it  is  again  His  office  to  speak  out  into  the  world 
the  Father’s  tlioughts  of  creation  and  redemption,  and  thus 
to  stand  to  the  creatures  generally,  and  especially  to  mankind, 
in  an  original  archetypal  relation  (John  i.  4).  And  finally,  as 
the  Son  is  thus  the  archetypal  and  ideal  principle  of  media- 


2G-1:  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCLIPTUEE.  [lECT.  IV. 

tion  between  God  and  the  world,  of  creation  and  of  redemp¬ 
tion,  so  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  real  or  efficient  principle, 
effectim^  and  individnalizin"  all  the  creative  and  redeemiim 

o  o  o 

energies  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  applying,  for  instance,  to 
each  individual  believer  the  justification  ideally  (i.e.  in  the 
idea  or  thought  of  God)  accomplished  by  the  Son,  and  so 
effecting  a  real  sanctification  and  regeneration  (Eph.  ii.  18  ; 
1  Cor.  xii.  3) :  in  which  process  He  takes,  indeed,  everything 
from  the  Son,  the  real  and  actual  having  always  the  ideal  and 
transcendent  for  its  ultimate  ground  and  condition.  . 

x\nd  if  from  this  point  we  now  look  back  on  those  dog¬ 
matic  statements  of  the  Athanasian  Creed  from  which  we 
•  started,  we  shall  find  them  confirmed  in  essentials  by  Holy 
Scripture  ;  the  Son  and  the  tioly  Spirit  are  with  their  imma¬ 
nence  in  the  Father  yet  distinct  persons,  and  with  their 
distinct  personality  they  continue  immanent.  Therefore, 
neither  may  we  confound  the  three  persons  nor  divide  the 
one  substance.  And  if  the  definitions  of  that  formulary  go 
somewhat  beyond  the  teaching  of  Scripture  and  of  the  earlier 
Church,  in  the  absolute  equalization  of  the  divine  persons 
(none  before  or  after,  none  greater  or  less),  to  the  partial 
obscuration  of  the  truth  of  the  derivation  and  subordination  of 
the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  in  the  co-equal  Godhead,  it  must 
nevertheless  be  acknowledged  that  the  Church  possesses  and 
guards  in  the  Athanasian  Creed  an  invalnable  restraint  and 
bulwark  against  speculative  errors,  whether  of  a  tritheistic  or 
deistic  or  pantheistic  tendency. 

At  the  same  time,  it  must  further  be  acknowledged  that 
these  definitions  and  distinctions  are  not  sufficient  to  bridge 
over  the  chasm  which  still  yawns  between  Faith  and  lleason. 
The  old  question  is  evermore  recurring  :  How  can  the  unity  of 
one  being  or  substance  admit  of  a  threefold  self-consciousness  ? 
How  can  there  be  one  substance  in  three  distinct  persons, 
and  with  three  distinct  personal  activities  ?  Eighteen  centuries 
of  toilsome  thought  have  not  succeeded  in  solving  this  enigma. 
The  most  recent  efforts  of  Speculative  Theology  make  us  only 
feel  more  acutely  that  here  we  stand  in  presence  of  the 
mystery  of  all  mysteries,  and  see  only  darkly  as  through  a 
mirror  of  obscure  reflection.  “  It  is  a  truth  ”  (to  use  the  noble 
words  of  Hilary  of  Poitiers)  “  which  lies  beyond  the  domain 


LECT.  IV.] 


THE  DOCTEINE  OF  THE  TEINITT. 


2G5 


of  human  language,  beyond  the  scope  of  sense,  beyond  the  com¬ 
prehension  of  reason.  The  archangels  know  it  not,  the  angels 
understand  it  not,  the  ages  do  not  comprehend  it,  no  pro})het 
has  discovered  it,  no  apostle  explored  it,  the  Son  Himself  has 
not  made  it  fully  known.”  Divine  mysteries  cannot,  and  were 
never  intended  to  be  made  perfectly  plausible  to  human  reason ; 
they  are,  and  must  be,  in  the  first  instance,  matters  of  faith. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  no  less  certain  that  they  must  also 
present  points  of  contact  for  our  apprehension ;  the  believing 
inquirer  seeks  for  a  reason  for  the  faith  that  is  in  him,  and  to 
penetrate  more  and  more  with  intelligent  understanding  into 
its  deptlis  (see  above,  Lect.  II.  3).  It  is  given  to  him  not 
only  to  believe,  but  also  to  know  the  mysteries  .of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  (Matt.  xiii.  11).  And  this  is  the  case  Avith  the 
fundamental  doctrine  of  the  holy  Trinity.  The  revelations  of 
ScrijAure  on  this  subject,  however  inadequate  may  be  the 
forms  given  to  them  in  the  svstems  of  earlier  and  later 
theology,  are  not  only  of  the  last  importance  for  our  knowledge 
of  God,  of  man,  and  of  the  universe ;  but  also  present  so  many 
aids  to  fruitful  meditation,  and  are  themselves  in  so  many 
ways  confirmed  by  the  witness  of  history  and  the  soundest 
results  of  rational  speculation,  that  only  the  most  indolent 
superficiality  would  pretend  to  reject  them  unexamincd.  So 
much  has  been  effected  in  our  own  day  for  tlie  illustration  of 
tliis  doctrine,  in  the  departments  of  scriptural  exegesis  and 
philosopliical  speculation,  as  well  as  in  that  of  dogmatic  and 
historical  theology,  that  we  have  already  sufficient  grounds  of 
reason  for  our  adherence  to  this  the  apostolic  faith  ;  which, 
not  having  its  source  in  mere  reason,  is  above  but  not  against 
it.  Only,  he  who  would  enter  into  tins  as  into  any  other 
truth,  must  have  his  standing  in  it  before  he  can  mulcrstand. 
But  Avhosoever,  not  in  the  carping,  one-sided  spirit  of  mere 
intellectual  exercise,  but  in  the  practical  way  of  botli  moral 
and  intellectual  self-surrender  to  the  quickening  and  illumi¬ 
nating  influences  of  the  triune  Godhead,  seeks  to  apprehend 
this  truth  of  the  divine  nature,  to  him  an  ever-widening  field 
of  rational  inquiry  will  be  revealed,  and  he  will  learn  more  and 
more  to  find  in  this  mystery  a  key  to  the  understanding  of  the 
deepest  enigmas  of  his  own  nature  and  that  of  the  world  around 
him.  This  will  be  clear  to  us  if,  in  conclusion,  we  proceed — 


£66 


THE  THEOLOGY  C  F  SCKirTUKE. 


[lECT.  IV. 


E.  To  examine  the  results  just  arrived  at  by  the  light  of 
our  present  advances  in  thouglit  and  knowledge.  We  shall 
see  how  man}^  collateral  siiviwrts  may  he  clerivccl  from  history 
and  'philoso'phy  in  support  of  this  truth.  Supports  they  must 
be,  not  positive  proofs  ;  for  such  can  never  be  alleged  in  respect 
of  a  divine  mystery.  We  shall  proceed  to  ask :  {a)  Whether 
the  history  of  religious  thought  and  development  does  not  bear 
witness  to  our  Trinitarian  faith,  and  that  both  positively  and 
negatively  ?  (b)  What  adremtages  the  Trinitarian  conception 

afibrds  in  respect  of  our  theological  and  cosmological  know¬ 
ledge  ?  And  then,  what  arguments  of  a  specidatixe  character 
in  favour  of  the  doctrine  may  be  drawn  (c)  from  a  considera¬ 
tion  of  the  divine  nature ;  (cl)  from  a  study  of  human  nature 
and  the  visible  universe  ;  and  (e)  from  the  testimony  of 
philosophy  ? 

(a)  'file  history  of  the  chief  religions  of  the  world  itself 
affords  so  many  collateral  supports  to  our  Trinitarian  concep¬ 
tion  of  God,  as  to  have  given  rise  to  the  assertion  that  primeval 
humanity  must  in  some  shape  or  other  have  possessed  the 
knowledge  of  the  triune  God,  which  thence  was  ti'ansmitted 
in  a  distorted  form  to  the  heathen  religions.  For  we  find 
traces  of  it,  not  only  here  and  there,  but  in  the  mythologies 
of  all  nations.  In  any  case,  it  is  certain  that  in  a  very  early 
age  men  learned  to  look  upon  three  as  the  perfect  number, 
expressing  absolute  harmony,  and  uniting  in  itself  beginning, 
middle,  and  end.  Flence  a  trinity  of  deities  in  cornmon  to  all 
nations.^  We  give  a  few  instances.  The  Emperor  of  China 
offers  once  every  year  a  sacrifice  to  the  Spirit  of  Trinity 
and  Unity.  Lao-tse  the  great  philosopher,  to  whom  the 
Chinese  pay  almost  divine  honours  (600  B.C.),  says:  Tao 
{i.e.  the  intelligent  principle  of  all  being)  is  by  nature  one  : 
the  first  begat  the  second ;  both  together  brought  forth  the 
third ;  these  three  made  all  things.  We  are  more  familiar 
with  the  Indian  Trimurti  (Trinity),  Brahma,  Vishnu,  and 
Shiva,  who  are  also  represented  and  worshipped  as  three 
persons,  though  the  original  divine  principle,  Brahm,  is  but 
one.  One  of  the  Burannas  (their  eacred  writings)  plainly 
declares  that  the  great  unity  is  to  be  distinctly  recognised  as 

’  Passages  in  verification  of  the  statements  here  made,  are  quoted  by  Keerl  in 
his  work  Die  Schopfung  u.  die  Lehre  vom  Paradies,  p.  159  et  ss. 


LECT.  IV.]  THE  DOCTPJNE  OF  THE  TRINITY.  267 

three  Gods  in  one  person.  In  a  commentary  on  the  Eigveda 
(a  book  of  sacred  hymns  collected  between  1300  and  600 
B.c.)  it  is  said :  There  are  three  Deities,  but  there  is  only  one 
Godhead,  the  great  soul.  The  so-called  GJialclcmn  Oracle  says  : 
“  The  Unity  brought  forth  the  Duality  which  dwells  with  it 
and  shines  in  intellectual  light ;  from  these  proceeded  the 
Trinity  which  shines  through  the  whole  world.  The  names 
of  tlie  Chaldsean  Trinity  are  Anos,  Illinos,  Aos.  In  like 
manner  we  find  a  Divine  Trinity  among  the  Bahjlonians 
(witness  the  three  images  in  the  temple  of  Eelus),  the 
Phcenicians  (Ulomus,  Ulosuros,  Eliun),  and  the  Erjypfians 
(Kneph  or  Ammun,  Phthas,  and  Osiris).  The  divinities  of 
Greece  were  grouped  by  mythologers  both  in  a  successive 
(Uranos,  Chronos,  Zeus)  and  a  simultaneous  Trinity  (Zeus, 
Poseidon,  Aidoneus).  The  coinage  of  the  Dalai  Lttma  (in 
Thibet)  is  stamped  with  a  representation  of  a  threefold 
divinity.  A  coin,  supposed  to  be  Tatarian,  and  preserved  in 
the  Imperial  collection  at  St.  Petersburg,  bears  the  impress  of 
a  human  figure  with  three  heads,  and  on  the  reveme  the 
inscription  :  “  Glorious  and  holy  picture  of  the  Godhead,  to  be 
contemplated  in  three  forms.” 

So,  too,  in  the  Keltic,  Germanic,  and  Slavic  mythology  we 
find  the  same  idea  of  a  Divine  Trinity;  amongst  the  IrUh 
(Kriosan,  Biosena,  Siva),  the  Scandinavians  (Thor,  Woden, 
Ericco),  the  ancient  Prussians  (Petrimpos,  Perkunos,  Pikullos), 
and  the  Poineranians  and  Wends  (whose  God  was  named 
Triglav,  i.e.  the  three-headed).  The  Edda  teaches  that  the 
earth  vms  created  by  Odin,  Vile,  and  Ve,  or  by  Odin,  Thor, 
and  Freya.  And,  finally,  the  ancient  Americans  worshipped 
the  sun  under  three  images,  which  they  called  Father,  Son, 
and  Brother  Sun.  One  of  their  great  idols  was  called  Tanga- 
langa,  ix.  One  in  Three  and  Three  in  One.  Tlie  three  Gods 
who  emanated  from  the  original  Spirit  they  called  Triniraaaka, 
i.e.  Trinity. 

Do  not  all  these  coincidences  serve  as  an  indirect  proof 
that  we  are  justified  in  holding  that  Elohim,  the  olde.st  divine 
name  in  Scripture,  contains  an  indication  of  the  Trinity  in  its 
plural  form  ?  And  does  not  this  strange  agreement  compel 
us  to  acknowledge  that  Schelling  was  right  when  he  said : 
“  The  philosophy  of  mythology  proves  that  a  Trinity  of  Divine 


268 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCEIPTURE. 


[LECT.  IV. 


Potentialities  is  the  root  from  which  have  grown  the  rclicjious  ideas 
of  all  nations  of  any  importance  that  are  known  to  us”?  In 
a  former  passage  we  confronted  Atheism  with  the  fact,  noticed 
even  by  heathens  themselves,  that  all  nations  are  agreed  in 
worshipping  some  higher  Being ;  and  we  regarded  this  as  a 
proof  that  our  consciousness  of  God  does  not  deceive  us. 
Now  we  may  point  those  who  deny  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
to  this  general  agreement  of  all  nations,  as  a  proof  for  the  truth 
of  our  Christian  conception  of  God  ;  while,  by  the  p?’c-Christian 
origin  of  these  mythologies,  we  are  guarded  against  the  objec¬ 
tion  that  these  Trinitarian  ideas  might  have  proceeded  from  the 
influence  of  Christian  ideas  upon  the  heathen  legends.  “  This 
idea  does  not  exist  because  there  is  such  a  thine:  as  Chris- 
tianity ;  on  the  contrary,  Christianity  exists  because  this  idea 
is  the  most  original  of  all  ”  (Schelling). 

But  in  addition  to  this  positive  argument  in  favour  of 
Trinitarianism,  the  history  of  religions  furnishes  us  with  a  no 
less  important  negative  support  in  the  example  of  those 
nations  whose  creed  has  remained  an  abstract  Monotheism- — the 
Jews  and  the  Mohammedans.  Here  we  see  that  the  mere 
abstract  unity  of  the  Godhead,  which  does  not  include  a 
multiplicity,  soon  leads  to  a  cold  and  lifeless  Deism ;  and  as 
soon  as  it  has  reached  this  point,  is  forced  to  seek  refresh¬ 
ment  from  the  pantheistic  religions  of  nature.  After  the  Jews 
and  Mohammedans  had  rejected  the  idea  of  a  Son  who  is  of 
the  same  divine  essence  with  His  Father  as  idolatry,  they 
were  fated  to  find  their  absolutely  monotheistic  conception  of  God 
tdtcrly  empty  and  lifeless,  so  that  they  yearned  after  the  warm 
vitality  of  Pantheism.  This  is  a  phenomenon  which  is  clearly 
evident  from  the  history  of  the  .Jewish  philosophers  (especially 
Spinoza),  as  well  as  of  the  Indian  and  Persian  pantheists.  And 
so,  too,  it  could  not  but  happen  that  philosophical  Pantheism 
should  tread  on  the  heels  of  German  Deism  and  Piationalism. 
As  long  as  Theism  distinguishes  only  between  God  and  the 
world,  and  not  between  God  and  God,  it  will  always  have  a 
tendency  to  Pantheism,  or  to  some  other  denial  of  absolute 
Being.  The  abstract  and  absolutely  monotheistic  philo¬ 
sophers  underwent  just  that  fate  which  Schiller  describes  in 
The  Gods  of  Greece.  Fulness  and  vitality  vanished  with  reve¬ 
lation  ;  One  has  taken  to  Himself  all  life,  and  neutralizes  aU 


LECT.  IV.] 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 


269 


the  vital  fulness  of  nature.  We  no  longer  feel  love  or  joy. 
There  is  but  One,  around  whom  all  things  move,  and  He  is  a 
cold,  mathematical  quantity,  a  point  of  pure  abstraction.  This, 
assuredly,  is  the  meaning  of  Schiller’s  poem”  (Nitzsch).  Hence 
we  can  well  understand  his  plaintive  lament : — 

“  A  desert  chill  around  us  lies, 

Devoid  of  life  and  warmth  divine  ; 

Dim  shadows  flit  before  our  eyes, 

AVhere  once  a  world  of  grace  did  shine. 

The  blooms  of  ancient  faiths  must  flit 
Before  a  northern  blast,  that  Ojie, 

Enriched  by  all  their  spoils,  may  sit 
High  on  a  barren,  cheerless  throne.” 

But  if  a  Christian  poet  could  thus  sing,  it  is  still  more 
natural  that  non-Christian  monotheists  of  this  class  should 
yearn  after  the  freshness  and  fulness  of  nature’s  life.  Back¬ 
wards  they  could  not  go  to  the  polytheistic  religion  of  nature, 
since  they  had  already  attained  to  the  conception  of  the 
divine  unity,  and  hence  they  had  no  choice  but  to  sink  this 
unity  in  matter,  and  turn  to  Pantheism. 

If,  then,  we  put  the  question,  Hoio  is  Monotheism  to  he  'pre¬ 
served  from  sinking  hack  again  into  the  deification  of  nature  ? 
the  answer  will  be.  Only  tlirough  helief  in  the  Trinity.  Poly¬ 
theism  contains  a  bare  contradiction  (for  the  god  who  has 
other  gods  beside  him  is  for  that  very  reason  not  god,  not 
the  highest  being,  not  almighty,  etc.).  The  untenableness  of 
Pantheism  we  have  already  seen.  Abstract  Monotheism  has 
too  little  life-blood  to  offer  an  enduring  resistance  to  the  pan¬ 
theistic  deification  of  nature.  What  remains  open  to  us  but 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity?  In  it  we  have  a  Unity;  not, 
however,  unloving  and  lifeless,  a  cold  numerical  One,  but  a 
complex  of  living  and  loving  energies, — a  living  Unity  em¬ 
bracing  a  Plurality,  and  bearing  the  sacred  name  of  Bather, 
Son,  and  Spirit. 

(h)  This  brings  us  to  the  great  advantages  derived  from  the 
Trinitarian  conception,  in  respect  to  the  knowledge  of  God  in 
general,  and  His  relation  to  the  world  and  to  man. 

We  have  already  remarked,  that  the  fulness  of  God’s  being 
cannot  be  contained  in  an  abstract  Unity,  and  yet  tliat  His 
absolute  personality  must  have  unity  for  its  fundameutal 


270 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCRIPTURE. 


[LECT.  IV. 


attribute.  Here  we  find  both  of  these  in  vital  interpenetra¬ 
tion.  God  is  One  it  is  true,  but  at  the  same  time  He  is  the 
Living  One,  the  organic  fulness  of  power  and  love,  and  thus 
alone  is  the  conception  of  a  truly  living  God  actually  realized. 

F urthermore,  the  conception  of  the  triune  God  furnishes  us 
with  the  sole  bridge  that  can  fill  tcp  the  breach  betioeen  God  and 
the  world.  Hone  but  this  can  fill  up  the  void  which  separates 
the  transcendent  unity  of  God  from  the  rich  and  manifold 
organization  of  natural  life.  Here  we  see  the  possibility  of 
the  world’s  creation  by  the  premundane  Word  of  God  and 
His  Spirit,  whose  work  it  is  to  realize  the  divine  tlioughts. 
The  Word  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  and  the  first¬ 
born  before  all  creatures,  in  which  God  sees  as  it  were  His 
alter  ego,  and  stands  in  relation  to  Himself,  and  through 
which  also  He  can  place  Himself  in  relation  to  other  beings. 
This  Word,  which  finally  becomes  incarnate  in  order  to  do 
and  suffer  for  mankind,  and  the  Spirit  who  by  His  power 
beGfets  fresh  life,  both  stand  between  God  and  the  world 
as  mediate  causes,  which  not  only  render  the  creation  of  the 
world  a  possibility,  but  also  guarantee  the  divine  presence 
in  it,  and  its  return  to  God.  Here,  then,  we  have  all  the 
fulness  and  freshness  of  Pantheism  combined  with  the  truth 
of  klonotheism,  whilst  the  element  in  which  the  latter  is 
wanting,  viz.  a  real  connecting  link  between  God  and  the 
world,  is  here  supplied  to  us.  Philosophy  has  not  been  slow 
to  recognise  these  advantages,  and  to  turn  them  to  account  in 
her  speculations,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter. 

Here,  first  of  all,  we  have  a  connecting  link  between  God 
and  man  in  the  person  of  the  Incarnate  Logos,  who  is  the 
eternal  Archetype  of  the  whole  creation,  and  especially  of 
man,^  and  who,  for  all  future  aeons,  will  be  the  head  of  the 
whole  body.  Here,  too,  the  spiritual  chasm  which  yawns 
between  sinful  man  and  the  absolutely  sinless  God-man,  is 
filled  up  by  the  regenerating  and  sanctifying  influences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Hence  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  affords  the 
most  important  aids  in  determining  our  practical  relation  to 
God.  We  have  seen  that  our  religious  need  can  only  be  fully 

‘  By  this  we  do  not  mean  to  affirm  that  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos  was 
necessary  per  se,  apart  from  the  sin  of  man  ;  since,  on  the  contraiy,  Scripture 
always  represents  it  as  ordained  by  the  f  ree  mercy  of  God  ore  account  of  sin. 


LECT.  IV.] 


THE  DOCTEIXE  OF  THE  THINITY. 


271 


satisfied  by  the  idea  of  God  as  the  eternal  and  all-lioly  love. 
The  belief  in  this  love  innst  revert  to  the  idea  of  the  love 
which  the  Father  bears  to  His  only-begotten  Son,  and  it  can 
ordy  be  perfected  practically  as  well  as  theoretically  by  a 
knowledge  of  the  perfect  and  eternal  object  of  the  divine  self- 
knowledge  and  self-love.  So,  too,  a  real  belief  in  the  self- 
communication  of  this  love  can  only  be  vitalized  and  preserved 
from  error  by  tlie  Trinitarian  doctrine  of  the  Holy'Spirit. 

From  all  this  it  follows,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  the 
consummedion  and  the  only  'perfect  protection  of  Theism.  We 
have  already  shown  that  the  theistic  conception  of  God  is  the 
only  true  one ;  and  we  may  now  add,  that  if  this  theistic 
conception  is  to  be  effectually  guarded  against  Atheism, 
Polytheism,  Pantheism,  Dualism,  and  Deism,  it  must  be  ex¬ 
panded  into  the  Trinitarian  idea.  Ho  true  Theism  without  the 
Trinity.  The  One  absolute  Personality  as  such  can  only  be 
the  triune  God.  Trinitarianism  is  no  less  true  and  necessary 
than  Theism ;  and  what  we  adduced  as  proofs  for  tlie  latter, 
are  mediate  arguments  for  the  former  also. 

(c)  In  addition  to  this,  Spieeulcdive  Theology  furnishes  us  with 
many  collateral  arguments  in  favour  of  the  truth  and  the 
intrinsic  necessity  of  the  Trinitarian  doctrine.  Many  attempts 
have  been  made  by  modern  theologians  to  derive  the  Trinitarian 
view  of  God  from  a  consideration  of  the  Divine  essence  itself. 
Of  course,  they  are  but  attempts,  and  not  perfectly  successful 
or  adecpiate  explanations.  In  all  such  speculations  it  behoves 
us  to  take  great  care  that  we  do  not  pass  from  the  difficult  to 
the  unintelligible  ;  bearing  this  in  mind,  I  would  lay  before 
3mu  some  of  the  most  important  of  these  tentative  theories. 
They  start  partly  from  the  self-consciousness  of  God,  partly  from 
the  idea  c^'  the  Absolute  Love. 

Hitzsch  remarks  that  the  Divine  Ego,  in  order  to  have  a" 
really  living  personality,  must  not  only  view  its  second  other 
self  as  an  object,  but  also  revert  to  itself  by  a  further  act  as  a 
third  subject,  as  that  it  comprehends  its  alter  ego  as  the  real 
image  of  itself.  “  If  God  be  conceived  as  the  primal  Ego,  and 
from  this  basis  begets  an  objective  alter  Ego,  this  thesis  and 
antithesis  still  remain  severed  or  incomplete  until  a  third  Ego 
proceeds  from  the  Divine  essence  through  the  medium  of  the 
set.ond,  and  thus  the  personality  is  fully  consummated.” 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCRIPTUEE. 


[LECT.  IV. 


272 

Modern  religions  pliilosoplrers  have  often  reasoned  thus : 
God  must  be  personal,  since  He  is  the  presupposition  of  out 
personality.  The  essence  of  personality  is  to  comprehend  it¬ 
self,  or  to  distinguish  in  itself  the  comprehending  and  the 
comprehended.  The  equality  of  these  two  elements  must  he 
developed  into  unity,  but  in  such  a  way  that  they  shall  not 
coincide  in  absolute  identity.  This  can  only  be  brought 
about  by  their  mutual  union  in  a  third  factor.  Hence  three 
persons,  I,  thou,  and  he,. are  indispensable  to  self-comprehension. 
Thus  the  Three  Persons  of  the  Godhead  presuppose  each 
other ;  they  are  in  one  another,  and  yet  distinct  (not  separate), 
so  that  each  of  the  three  Persons  is  I,  Thou,  and  He,  because 
personality  includes  the  possibility  and  reality  of  self-trans¬ 
position.^ 

Others  argue  thus  :  The  Divine  nature  must  be  primarily 
conceived  of  as  Being,  as  Necessity  (Father),  but  at  the  same 
time  as  Action,  as  Freedom  (Son) ;  the  mediation  of  both  these 
factors  being  effected  by  Love  (the  Holy  Spirit). 

The  interpretations  drawn  by  Liebner,  Sartorius,  and  others 
from  the  idea  of  love,  are  clearer.  The  Trinity  in  Unity  and 
absolute  Personality,  replete  with  truly  moral  and  actually 
wrought  out  personal  life,  pertains  to  God,  because  He  is  Love, 
not  because  He  is  a  self-conscious  Spirit.  For  absolute  Love 
demands  a  process  of  self-communication,  which  in  its  highest 
perfection  must  be  trinitarian.  Love  is  the  transposition  of 
onos  selj  into  another  personae  his  second  self  {alter  ego).  God, 
who  is  Love,  must  therefore  transpose  Himself  into  His  second 
Self,  Avhich  as  such  is  of  the  same  Divine  nature,  since  other- 
^vise  the  act  of  self-transposition  would  not  be  perfect.  No 
less  necessary,  however,  is  the  conception  of  a  third  homo¬ 
geneous  Self,  by  which  the  infinite  equality  is  mediated  so  as 
to  produce  harmonious  unity  in  distinctions.  This  act  it  is 
which  permanently  fixes  the  divine  personality ;  for  mere  self¬ 
transposition  would  be  equal  to  infinite  restlessness.  Tlius 
God  is  one  person  in  three  persons,  each  of  which  is  only  in 
and  through  the  others  ;  and  this  apparent  contradiction,  that 
several  persons  should  be  one,  and  have  their  full  personality 

*  Cf.  Meluiii",  “  Die  pliilosopliisch  kiiti.'iclicn  Giundsatze  cler  Sclbstvoritus- 
scnuig,  odor  die  Eeligion.spliilosoj^diie,”  p.  91  et  ss. ;  also  the  passage  above 
quoted  :  “I  am  He.” 


LECT.  IV.] 


THE  DOCTPJNE  OF  THE  TPIXITY. 


273 


only  in  this  unity,  is  solved  only  by  the  principle  of  love 
(Liebner). 

This  idea  is  very  beautifully  worked  out  by  Sartorius. 
“  God  is  love — personal,  primal  love.  What  can  He  more 
delight  to  say  than  “  My  beloved  ”  ?  God  is  the  Father,  the 
eternal  Father.  What  is  the  Father’s  eternal  and  dearest 
Word  other  than  Son,  beloved  Son  (Matt.  iii.  17)?  Through 
the  eternal  Son,  God  is  the  eternal  Father,  the  eternally  loving 
and  eternally  loved  One ;  the  eternal  I  and  the  eternal  Thou, 
as  Christ  addresses  His  Father  in  loving  converse  (John  xvii. 
24).  And  this  Love  is  as  ready  to  impart  itself,  as  perfect 
and  as  great  as  God  whose  essence  it  is  ;  and  therefore  the  Son 
is  not  less  than  the  Father,  nor  does  He  differ  from  Him  either 
in  essence  or  in  origin.  How  small  would  be  the  Fatherhood 
were  the  Son  but  half  God  !  We  must  distinguish  between 
the  love  which  hcgcts  the  Son  and  that  which  Messes  Him, — 
the  love  of  the  well- pleased  Father,  and  again,  the  ansivering 
love  on  the  Son’s  part.  The  breath  of  that  blessing  and 
answering  love  is  the  Spirit.  But  were  He  only  breath,  and 
not  a  person,  the  glorification  of  the  Father  and  Son  througli 
the  Spirit  would  be  egoistical.  This  egoistical  element  is 
removed  only  if  the  Spirit  who  glorifies  the  Father  and  the 
Son  is  Himself  a  person.” 

The  meaning  of  this  sentiment  is  as  follows :  Love  always 
includes  delight  in  the  object  loved.  If  tliis  object  be  an 
entirely  separate  person,  the  purity  of  my  love  is  not  sullied 
by  my  delight.  But  this  is  not  the  case  with  God.  The 
object  of  His  love  is  not  a  person  outside  of  Him,  but  His 
second  Self.  Here,  therefore,  the  delight  in  another  is  at  the 
same  time  delight  in  Himself.  In  order,  therefore,  that  this 
delight  may  not  appear  as  self-seeking  egotism,  God  has  com¬ 
mitted  this  delight  in  Himself  to  a  third  Person,  which  repre¬ 
sents  the  mutual  delight  of  Father  and  Son  in  each  other ; 
and  this  Person  is  the  Lloly  Spirit.  When  the  Father  uttered 
Himself,  He  begat  the  Son,  the  eternal  Word.  But  no  speech 
can  take  place  without  breathing,  and  the  breath  of  that 
spoken  Word  was  hypostatized  in  the  Spirit,  which  represents 
the  delight  of  the  Divine  Loye. 

In  a  similar  manner,  Delitzsch  has  recently  attempted  to 
reconcile  the  trinitarian  passages  of  Holy  Scripture  with  the 

S 


274 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCLITTURE. 


[lect.  IV. 


idea  of  God  as  contained  in  onr  reason.  The  triune  God  is — 
1.  Absolute  Life,  the  impulse  of  whose  development  is  an  act 
of  will ;  in  Him  existence  and  will,  necessity  and  freedom, 
interpenetrate  each  other.  This  Life  is  unfolded  within  the 
Divine  Beino-  without  counteraction  from  the  world  ;  it  is  self- 
filled  and  self-consummated.  But  being  such,  it  cannot  be 
otherwise  conceived  than  as  a  life  of  love.  Hence  the  triune 
God  is — 2.  Absolute  Love.  The  object  of  this  love  cannot  be 
the  world, — since,  then,  God  would  not  be  love  in  Himself, — 
but  only  His  alter  ego,  the  Son ;  whereas  the  Holy  Ghost  con¬ 
summates  the  mutual  relationship  between  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  as  it  were,  in  a  perfect  circle  of  divine  love.  But  both 
these  conceptions  of  life  and  love  point  only  to  the  personality 
of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  not  to  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Hence,  finally,  the  triune  God  must  be  conceived  of— 3.  As 
Absolute  Organism,  which  unites  in  itself  the  essential  charac¬ 
teristics  of  nature  (substantial  objectivity  without  self-con¬ 
sciousness)  and  spirit  (self-consciousness  without  substantial 
objectivity).  As  the  highest  identity,  it  must  combine  these 
two  factors,  which  in  the  world  are  separated ;  the  latter 
raises  it  above  created  nature,  the  former  above  created  spirit, 
so  that  it  embraces  both. — Delitzsch,  Apologetile,  p.  277  et  ss. 

Whatever  objections  may  be  raised  against  the  force  of 
such  arguments,  especially  as  regards  the  personality  of  the 
Spirit,  yet  thus  much,  at  least,  is  clear  and  certain :  Because 
God  is  love,  therefore  there  must  be  distinctions  in  LLim,  which, 
however,  bg  love  are  again  brought  into  unity.  The  object  of  this 
(intra-divine)  love  can  be  nothing  less  important  than  God 
Himself,  else  this  love  would  not  be  fully  justified ;  nor  can  it 
be  an3fihing  outside  of  God,  else  God’s  intrinsic  nature  \vould 
not  be  love.  For  both  reasons  this  object  cannot  be  the 
transitory  world,  but  only  the  eternal  Son,  who  is  of  the  same 
essence  with  tlie  Father.  LLow  this  love  preserves  its  equili- 
liriurn,  or  its  unselfisliness  and  purity  through  the  Holy  Ghost 
as  the  third  Person,  this  must  remain  to  us  a  mystery  so 
long  as  the  spirit  of  selfishness  and  sin  is  not  overcome,  and 
hinders  even  our  self-knowledge,  to  say  nothing  of  our  know¬ 
ledge  of  God,  whicfi  is  brought  about  b}!"  the  surrender  of  our¬ 
selves  to  Him.  The  practical  gist  of  this  doctrine  is  simply 
this,  to  proclaim  that  God  is  eterned  and  perfect  love,  and  that  the 


LECT.  IV.] 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 


275 


historical  revelation  of  His  love  in  Christ  corresponds  to 
His  eternal  essence,  in  whose  everlasting  seii-distinction  and 
self-comprehension  into  unity  the  divine. life  is  changelessly 
evolved. 

(d)  Another  and  more  obvious  series  of  collateral  supports 
for  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  may  be  found  in  a  consideration 
of  His  image  as  reflected  in  our  own  human  nature,  and  in 
creation  generally.  For  if  God  be  indeed  Trinity  in  Unity, 
then  there  is  every  reason  to  suppose  that  the  works  of  His 
hands  should,  in  some  degree  at  least,  reflect  His  nature,  and 
especially  that  man,  who  is  created  in  the  image  of  God 
should  evince  in  His  nature  certain  analogies  which  indicate  a 
triune  Creator. 

And  what  an  abundance  of  such  indications  meets  our  eye, 
so  long  as  we  do  not  forget  that  we  cannot  expect  to  find 
wuthin  the  limits  of  created  life  analogies  perfectly  correspond¬ 
ing  with  that  which  is  incomparable  and  unique  !  Christian 
thinkers,  even  in  olden  times,  discovered  traces  of  the  Trinity 
in  the  life  of  the  human  spirit  ;  and  hence  Augustine  and 
others  speak  of  a  human  trinity,  consisting  in  the  threefold 
function  of  feeling,  thought,  and  will.  And,  indeed,  these 
principal  faculties  of  the  spirit  present  us,  as  it  were,  with  a 
threefold  cord,  the  threads  of  whkh  are  distinct  and  yet  one, 
and  they  give  us  some  idea  of  the  united  and  harmonious 
co-operation  of  the  three  Divine  Persons.  Ho  single  one 
of  these  three  functions  of  feeling,  thought,  and  will  can  be 
exercised  without  the  simultaneous  activity  of  the  others. 
“  Thus  the  spiritual  life  of  man  is,  in  fact,  always  a  nndtipli- 
city  of  intermingling  actions.  In  this  intermingled  action  I 
see  a  picture  of  the  threefold  divine  life,  showing  how  every 
vital  act  of  one  Person  calls  forth  and  is  necessarily  accom¬ 
panied  by  a  corresponding  act  of  both  the  others ;  so  that  the 
vital  movements  of  any  one  Person  posit  those  of  the  others” 
(Gess),  just  as  we  have  seen  in  the  work  of  creation,  redemp¬ 
tion,  and  sanctification.  But  just  as  wuth  the  soul,  its  three 
functions  may  be  distinguislied,  but  not  separated,  so,  too,  in 
the  case  of  the  three  Persons  who  form  the  one  Divine  Being. 

In  like  manner,  the  process  of  our  thought  will  explain  to 
us  in  some  degree  the  pre-existence  of  the  Son  as  the  Logos 
or  Word  of  the  Father.  In  our  humau  consciousness  a  certain 


276 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCEIPTUEE. 


[lECT.  IV. 


thought  always  simultaneously  produces  the  corresponding 
word ;  we  can  only  think  in  conceptions  and  wmrds,  for  our 
thought  is  inward  speech.  So,  too,  God’s  thought  of  Himself 
necessitates  the  utterance  of  the  Word  which  represents  this 
primal  Thought ;  but  the  divine  utterance  is  at  the  same  time 
a  real  act,  and  hence  this  inner  Word  in  God  is  a  Being  equal 
to  Him.  True,  in  our  human  self-consciousness  we  do  not,  by 
conceiving  ourselves,  produce  a  second  self;  we  all  the  time 
have  only  one  ego.  But  we  are  only  creatures,  not  the 
creative  source  of  life ;  and  even  our  human  consciousness  is 
still  imperfect.  But  the  case  is  different  with  God,  who  is 
the  eternal  and  almighty  source  of  life  and  power.  His  self- 
consciousness  is  absolutely  perfect,  and  hence  the  intellectual 
image  of  Himself,  which  He  has  conceived,  may  become  a  real 
substantial  antitype  of  the  Bather.  In  any  case,  we  have  an 
analogy  to  the  Trinity  in  the  thought,  its  product  the  word, 
and  the  unity  of  both,  the  spirit.  In  addition  to  this  argument 
for  the  personality  of  the  Divine  Word  as  drawn  from  our 
intellectual  consciousness,  we  find  that  a  similar  argument  for 
the  personality  of  the  Spirit  may  be  drawn  from  our  religious 
consciousness.  Baith  tells  us  that  the  Spirit  is  giving  us  true 
personality  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  that  without  Him  we 
cannot  in  any  way  attain  to  full,  firm.  Godlike  personality. 
But,  as  we  have  already  remarked,  that  which  tends  to  pro¬ 
mote  true  personality  cannot  in  itself  be  impersonal. 

IMoreover,  let  us  remember  that  the  fundamental  form  of  all 
syntax,  which  governs  our  thought  and  our  speech,  is  a  trijplicity 
which  contains  a  unity,  or  a  unity  w’hich  developes  into  tri- 
plicity.  Bor  every  sentence  consists  of  subject,  predicate, 
and  copula — three  parts,  wdiich  together  express  one  thought. 
Indeed,  every  conception  “  has  something  of  the  trinity,” 
since  in  it  is  the  union  of  subject  and  predicate,  wdiich  does 
aivay  with  their  distinction.  The  fundamental  schema  of  all 
spiritual  development  is  ahvays  position,  contraposition,  higher 
unity  of  both  (thesis,  antithesis,  synthesis).  Everywdiere  three 
is  the  fundamental  number  of  the  self-reverting  process. 

As  in  the  human  spirit,  so,  too,  in  the  outivard  icorld  of  nature, 
there  are  certain  indications  and  reflections  of  the  Trinity. 
This  truth  is  not  only  revealed  in  Scripture,  and  confirmed  by 
history  and  intellectual  speculation,  but  it  is,  so  to  speak, 


LECT.  IV.] 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 


277 


omnipresent  tliroughont  the  world.  We  constantly  see  one 
life,  in  various  members;  in  each  one  it  acts  in  a  special 
manner,  yet  in  all  it  is  one  and  the  same.  In  the  one  sun 
we  see  light  and  ivarmih  as  different,  and  yet  intermiiigling 
and  co-operating  forces.  We  have  the  one  space  divided  into 
three  dimensions  of  length,  breadth,  and  heiglit;  time,  similarly, 
into  past,  present,  and  future  ;  all  bodies  into  solid,  liquid, 
and  gaseous.  In  analogy  with  the  three  parts  required  to 
form  a  sentence,  we  find  that  the  kingdom  of  sound  is  governed 
by  the  triad,  as  the  basis  of  all  chords  ;  nor  does  this  destroy 
the  original  unity  of  the  key-note,  but,  on  the  contrary,  makes 
it  an  organized  unity  embracing  multiplicity.  What  remark¬ 
able  analogies  are  shown  by  the  laws  of  colour  and  of  light ! 
The  three  fundamental  colours,  red,  yellow,  and  blue,  dis¬ 
solve  into  the  unity  of  white  light,  so  that  an  English  naturalist 
(C.  Woodward)  might  well  call  this  white  light  a  trinity  in 
unity.  But  they  coalesce  in  such  a  manner,  “  that  each  of  the 
three  rays  preserves  its  distinctive  attribute.  Bed  is  the  caloric, 
yellow  the  luminous,  blue  the  chemical  (activic)  ray.”^  God 

^  Cf.  C.  Woodward,  Familiar  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Light.  If  it  is  per¬ 
missible  to  follow  this  analogy  out  further,  we  should  say  that  the  caloric  ray 
evidently  corresponds  to  the  Father,  the  warm  Source  of  life ;  the  luminous  ray 
to  the  Sou,  the  Light  of  the  world;  and  the  chemical  ray  to  the  S})irit,  which 
pierces  into  the  innerinost  recesses  of  the  heart,  and  iinbues  it  with  peculiar 
qualities  and  forces.  One  of  the  instances  given  by  Woodward  is  very  sug¬ 
gestive.  Some  plants  (cucumbers  and  melons)  were  put  under  a  glass  which 
was  so  coloured  as  to  absorb  the  blue  (chemical)  rays  of  light.  The  consequence 
was,  that  the  qdants  grew  with  the  greatest  rapidity,  and  put  forth  lu.vuriant 
blossoms,  but  just  as  quickly  they  faded  away  again,  without  bringing  fruit. 
Does  not  this  look  like  a  physical  reflection  of  the  Christian  precept,  “  Quench 
not  the  Spirit,”  because  without  Him  no  real  fruit  can  ripen?  (I  Thess.  v.  19  ; 
Gal.  V.  22.)  How  mightily  did  men  multiply  before  the  flood!  but  because 
they  utterly  withdrew  themselves  from  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  they  onlj’’ 
ripened,  without  fruit,  for  a  sudden  death.  True,  from  a  strictly  scientific  i)oint 
of  view  we  cannot  attach  much  weight  to  such  theosophical  indications.  Yet 
thus  much  we  may  aflirm  respecting  certain  fundamental  principles  (such  as 
light,  life,  etc.)  which  occur  in  the  region  of  intellect,  physics,  and  morals, — 
that  ill  them  the  whole  enigma  of  the  world  and  its  history  lies  hid,  and  that  by 
means  of  them  we  must  endeavour  to  aseend  from  our  discursive  rational  knmv- 
ledge  to  a  central  intuition  of  the  ultimate  and  universal  Cause  of  all  being. 
The  man  who  has  no  presentiment  of  this  is  incapable  of  entering  into  any  pro¬ 
found  speculative  jdiilosophy.  In  this  there  lies  a  clue  to  the  temple  of  know¬ 
ledge,  lost  to  man  since  his  banishment  from  paradise,  but  of  which  scattered 
fragments  at  least  may  be  found.  To  collect  these,  is  the  ultimate  task  of  all 
science. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCItlPTURE. 


278 


[lect.  iy. 


is  Liglit ;  and,  verilj,  natural  liglit,  the  first  of  His  creatures, 
bears  the  immediate  impress  of  His  triune  Being  ! 

No  less  does  the  number  three  govern  the  arrangement  of 
Nature’s /orccs ;  Mdiether  we  adopt  the  classification  of  Ohm,^ 
who  divides  the  fundamental  forces  into  those  of  “  attraction, 
tension,  and  polarity,”  or  the  more  general  enumeration,  attrac¬ 
tion,  reimlsion,  equilibrium.  The  whole  of  nature  is  ruled  by 
the  law  of  polarit}",  with  its  two  magnetic  poles  and  their 
equipoise.  Positive  and  negative  electricity  are  balanced  by 
the  electric  spark.  The  entire  development  of  the  vegetable 
world  takes  place  in  a  process  of  three  degrees.  First,  the 
self-enclosed  potential  unity  (seed,  germinal  cell,  root),  then 
the  self-development  into  multiplicity  (inward  dilation  a3id 
ramification  of  the  germ,  stem),  and,  finally,  conclusion  of  the 
multiplicity  in  organized  unity  (leaf,  fruit,  return  to  the  seed 
and  germinal  cell). 

Is  not  the  eternal  Origin  of  life  visible  in  all  these  things 
in  a  thousand  pictures  ?  Were  we  not  right  in  saying  tliat 
the  idea  oj  the  Trinity  was  omnipresent  1  Not  only  do  we  bear 
it  in  our  own  spirit  as  the  ruling  law  of  all  its  vital  functions; 
not  only  do  we  see  it  shine  forth  in  the  religions  of  all  nations 
as  a  dark  presentiment  common  to  all:  Nature  herself  reflects 
this  truth  “  as  in  a  tlmusand  mirrors  ;  every  vrliere  Ave  hear  its 
harmony,  we  see  its  brightness,  and  feel  it  looking  at  us 
through  a  thousand  eyes”  (Delitzsch,  ubi  siip.  pp.  282-286). 

(e)  No  wonder  that  philosophy  too — and  that  not  only  the 
old  mystic  theosophical  speculation,  but  also  modern  idealism, 
with  all  the  acuteness  of  its  dialectics — has  taken  up  the  idea 
of  a  triune  God,  and  endeavoured  to  comprehend  and  to  prove 
it.  True,  they  haA^e  often  ended  in  proving  the  truch  of  an 
utterance  once  made  by  a  profound  divine  in  respect  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  which  I  would  beg  my  readers  to 
lay  to  heart.  “  If  Ave  go  too  deeply,  and  yet  not  deeply  enough 
into  this  matter,  Ave  shall  be  blinded  by  this  sun.”  They  have 
also  confirmed  our  remarks  as  to  the  acliievementsof  independent 
reason,  Avhich,  with  haughty  self-sufficiency,  despises  the  light 
of  revelation,  and  therefore  can  attain  to  no  sure  and  positive 
results.  But  still  their  efforts  show  us  that  modern  philoso)ohy 
(from  Jacob  Bohme  ouAvards)  feels  that  this  doctrine  is  the  true 
‘  Die  Dreieinit/keit  der  Kra/t,  Nurnberg,  1856. 


LECT.  n^] 


THE  DOCTRIXE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 


279 


solution  of  the  loorld's  enigma.  Moreover,  tliese  pliilosopliical 
investigations  cast  a  strong  light  on  the  unconscionable  super¬ 
ficiality  and  short-sightedness  of  those  who  most  reject  this 
fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Christian  faith  untested,  without 
a  notion  of  its  deep  religious,  philosophical,  and  historical 
import. 

Hegel  calls  the  idea  of  the  Trinity  “  the  pivot  of  the  world.” 
A>  cording  to  him,  the  Father  is  God  as  self-existent,  or  as 
it  ivere  self-enclosed ;  He  discloses  Himself  as  the  Son,  and 
in  this  form  takes  upon  Him  the  form  of  individual  being, 
thereby  compensating  the  contrariety  between  the  Absolute 
and  the  Individual.  The  latter,  however,  is  not  the  adecpiate 
focin  of  absolute  being;  therefore  it  undergoes  death,  and  rises 
again  as  the  Spirit ; — or,  in  other  words,  the  Father  is  God 
in  the  abstract,  mere  universality;  the  Son  is  infinite  particu¬ 
larity;  the  Spirit  is  phenornenality  or  individuality  as  such 
{Religionsphilos.  iii.).  True,  the  entire  groundwork  of  this 
view  is  pantheistic,  and  the  difference  between  it  and  the 
biblical  doctrine  is  evident.  For  acccording  to  Hegel,  Father, 
Son,  and  Spirit  successively  change  into  each  other,  whereas 
Scripture  teaches  that  they  exist  simultaneously  with  and  in 
each  other.  But  in  any  case  we  see  how  deeply  the  concep¬ 
tion  of  the  Trinity  is  interwoven  with  Hegel’s  system. 

Schelling  has  followed  out  this  idea  far  more  fully,  and  in 
his  Philosophie  der  Offenharung  he  approaches  very  closely 
to  the  Christian  view.  God  is  the  perfect  Spirit  in  three 
forms ;  proceeding  from  Himself,  existing  by  Himself,  and 
reverting  to  Himself.  The  Father  is  the  Author  of  matter, 
the  Son  the  Author  of  form,  and  the  Spirit  the  ultimate  Cause 
of  the  world  as  the  unity  of  both.  Hence  the  world  is  created 
by  the  Father,  through  the  Son,  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  A  still 
greater  affinity  to  the  Christian  doctrine  is  shown  by  the  specu¬ 
lations  of  Baader  (according  to  whom  the  divinity  of  the  three 
Persons  proceeds  from  the  Father,  their  personality  from  the 
Son,  and  their  spirituality  from  the  Holy  Spirit)  and  J.  H. 
Fichte,  who  distinguishes  between  a  real  objective  and  an  ideal 
subjective  a.spect  of  the  Divine  essence,  combined  in  a  third 
and  higher  principle,  viz.  that  of  volition  or  of  love. 

These  instances  will  suffice  to  make  us  comprehend  what  a 
philosopher  some  years  ago  most  truly  remarked :  The  con- 


280 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCEIPTURE. 


[l.ECT.  IV. 


cc'pfions  of  speculative  philosophy,  where  they  are  most  profound,, 
come  nearest  to  the  Christian  doctrine;  nor  need  we  Le  anxious 
lest  speculative  philosophy  should  ever  reach  a  height  from 
which  it  may  look  down  and  say  that  the  Christian  element 
is  left  behind.  No  thought  can  transcend  the  Christian  idea, 
for  it  is  truth  in  itself”  (Braniss). 

Thus  we  are  from  all  quarters  forcibly  referred  to  the  idea 
of  the  Trinity  ;  and  should  we  ever  he  tempted  to  sacrifice  the 
Trinity  to  the  Unity,  it  will  be  well  to  remember  that  the 
scriptural  and  Christian  conception  of  God  is  justified  and 
proved,  as  far  as  a  mystery  can  be,  by  history  and  science,  by 
nature  and  philosophy. 

AVe  may  apply  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  the  beautiful 
words  uttered  by  Vinet,  when  speaking  of  love :  “  It  is  a 
mystery,  the  greatest  of  all  mysteries,  and  the  key  of  all 
mysteries,  but  itself  has  no  key.”  The  collateral  arguments 
which  we  have  adduced  are  by  no  means  keys  that  can  open 
this  mystery,  hut  they  are  handles  for  our  intellect  and 
imagination,  whicli  give  us  sufficient  cause  not  to  reject  this 
doctrine  as  irrational.  Indeed,  they  show  that  the  idea  of  the 
Trinity  is  really  the  hey  to  a  comprehension  of  the  xdtimate  loorld- 
enigmas ;  of  the  world’s  eternal  pre-condition  in  God ;  of 
its  creation,  redemption,  and  consummation.  AATthout  this 
doctrine,  Scripture  is  to  us  a  sealed  book ;  without  it,  we  our¬ 
selves  and  the  world’s  history  are  a  dark  riddle.  For  these 
reasons  we  ought  thankfully  to  accept  the  revelation  of  this 
truth.  True,  this  is  a  problem,  the  rational  solution  of  which 
in  -this  life  is  and  must  remain  mere  patchwork  ;  hut  even 
this  patchwork  is  far  deeper  and  more,  valuable  for  our  know¬ 
ledge  as  a  whole  (to  say  nothing  of  our  practical  religion) 
than  all  that  the  cheap  wisdom  of  the  street  can  bring  forward 
in  objection.  And  so,  too,  tlie  mere  struggle  to  solve  this 
problem,  even  though  it  should  he  without  results,  is  of  in¬ 
finitely  greater  value  than  the  ready  rejection  which  we  so 
often  hear  from  the  intellectual  slothfulness  of  unbelief. 

The  conclusion  already  arrived  at  (Lect.  II )  Avith  regard 
to  the  relationship  between  reason  and  revelation,  has  there 
been  perfectly  confirmed,  and  that  in  the  case  of  tliat  very 
article  of  our  belief  Avhich  is  most  difficult  for  the  intel¬ 
lect.  We  have  seen  that  philosophy  and  faith,  reason  and 


1 


LECT.  IV.] 


THE  DOCTEINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 


281 


revelation,  are  by  no  means  natural  enemies ;  on  tbe  contrary, 
if  riglitly  used,  they  demand,  they  support,  they  supplement 
each  other.  ]More  than  this.  We  have  seen  that  the  darker 
the  revelation  the  greater  is  the  reward,  both  for  faith  and 
knowledge,  which  awaits  those  who  gradually  penetrate  into 
it.  Just  because  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  the  most 
obscure  and  enigmatic  revelation  of  God,  therefore  to  him  who 
penetrates  into  it  with  earnest  searchings  the  profoundest 
depths  of  knowledge  will  be  opened,  and  what  is  apparently 
self- contradictory  will  appear  more  and  more  in  grand  harmony 
and  intrinsic  necessity.  At  first  it  appears  to  be  quite  con¬ 
trary  to  reason,  afterwards  reason  is  more  and  more  in  favour 
of  it,  and  finally  it  cannot  give  it  up,  it  becomes  indispensable 
for  her  entire  knowledge  >of  God  and  the  world. 

We  have  seen  that  just  the  contrary  is  the  case  Vvdth  the 
false  non-biblical  conceptions  of  God.  At  first  they  please 
our  reason,  and  look  as  if  they  could  give  a  simple  solution  of 
all  enigmas.  But  the  more  deeply  reason  goes  to  Avork  Avith 
them,  the  less  satisfactory  do  they  become ;  the  more  do 
enigmas,  obscurities,  aye,  contradictions  appear,  till  at  length 
it  is  evident  that  the  Avhole  fabric  rests  on  unproven  and 
untenable  assumptions,  and  that  those  conceptions  really  give 
none  of  those  explanations  Avhich  they  at  first  promised. 

But  if  by  reason  of  this  profound  agreement  between  the 
testimony  of  Holy  Scripture  and  the  demands  and  discoA^eries 
of  science,  any  one  should  adopt  the  Christian  conception  of 
God,  let  him  not  forget  that  in  and  Avith  it  he  has  essentially 
accepted  the  entire  Christian  faith.  The  Apostles’  Creed  shoAVS 
that  the  Christian  doctrines  of  creation,  redemption,  and  sancti¬ 
fication,  Christian  faith  and  Christian  morals,  all  centre  in  our 
belief  in  the  triune  God. 

Does  the  choice  still  embarrass  you  ?  Then  alloAv  me,  after 
the  intellectual  exertions  Avhich  I  could  not  dispense  Avith,  to  put 
a  question  to  your  conscience.  Supposing  that  eternity  should 
show  us  that  Ave  Avere  mistaken  in  our  scriptural  and  Christian 
vieAv  of  God,  ivliat  harm  vjovM  it  have  done  to  v.s?  In  this 
life,  none  at  all.  For  our  faith  in  the  holy,  personal  and  living 
God  has  proved  to  us  a  constant  source  of  moral  strength,  and 
an  enduring  impulse  to  all  that  is  good.  Which  of  us  Avould 
deny  that,  as  often  as  Ave  rose  from  our  knees,  or  had  been* 


282 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCEIPTURE. 


[lect.  IV. 


otherwise  absorbed  in  tins  divine  faith,  we  felt  more  capable 
and  willing  to  do  all  that  was  good,  more  disinclined  to  all 
evil — more  strong,  more  pure,  and  more  d-ivine  ?  ISTof  could 
we  hardly  suffer  harm  in  another  life.  For  if  we  found  no 
living,  personal  God  there,  our  own  personal  existence  would 
be  at  an  end,  and  we  could  not  even  become  conscious  of  our 
deception.  But  supposing,  on  the  other  hand,  that  we  nourish 
our  doubts,  adopt  a  non-biblical  conception  of  God,  and  tlien 
in  another  world  find  all  that  realized  which  here  we  had 
denied,  what  ivould  have  hecn  our  gain  even  in  this  life  were 
our  doubts  able  to  inspire  us  with  strength  to  do  or  to 
suffer  ?  Did  they  not  rather,  in  the  depths  of  our  soul,  make 
us  timid  and  undecided  ?  Did  they  not  exercise  a  paralyz¬ 
ing  influence  on  our  spiritual  and  moral  life  ?  For  this  life 
we  should  have  gained  nothing ;  but  for  the  other  life,  when 
we  have  to  meet  the  disregarded  and  dishonoured  God,  the 
Eternal  King  who  is  a  consuming  fire,  how  then  ? 

“  Give  me  great  thoughts  !  ”  cried  Herder  on  his  death-bed. 
Yes  ;  in  death  we  all  need  great  thoughts.  This  at  least  you 
will  not  deny.  The  greatest  minds,  princes  in  the  realm  of 
thought,  grasp  after  them  in  their  dying  hour,  and  cling  to 
them  as  a  support  amidst  the  great  shipwreck  in  which  the 
entire  visible  world  is  sinking  before  their  eyes.  But  the 
greatest  of  all  thoughts  is  God;  the  eternal,  personal,  holy 
God  who  is  love.  And  in  such  moments  ITe  is  the  only  great 
and  enduring  thought.  All  others  vanish  and  dissolve  before 
Him.  Woe  be  to  him  who  at  that  crisis  lacks  the  eternal 
support  of  this  thought ;  who  only  grasps  it  in  earnest  when 
he  liimself  is  being  grasped  by  it ! 

See  this  exemplified  in  the  case  of  a  sceptic  of  the  first 
rank  during  the  last  century,  who  was  equalled  by  few  in  his 
persistent  and  life-long  opposition  to  Christianity,  by  none  in 
the  endless  floods  of  biting  satire  with  which  he  deluged  all 
scriptural  belief ;  who  gradually  sank  from  Deism  to  Atheism, 
till  at  length  he  worshipped  “the  will  of  his  sacred  majesty, 
Cliance :  ”  I  mean  Voltaire.  “  All  things  considered,”  he 
writes  to  a  lady  who  was  in  fear  of  death,  “  I  am  of  opinion 
that  one  ought  never  to  think  of  death.  This  thought  is  of 
no  use  whatever,  have  to  embitter  life.  Death  is  a  mere 
nothing.  Those  people  who  solemnly  proclaim  it  are  enemies 


LECT.  IV.] 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 


283 


of  tlie  human  race ;  one  must  endeavour  always  to  heep  them 
off.  Death  is  as  like  to  sleep  as  one  drop  of  water  to  anotlier. 
It  is  merely  the  idea  that  Ave  shall  not  wake  up  again  Avhich 
gives  us  pain.”  But  when  death,  this  despicable  nothing, 
approached  the  man  who  thought  that  by  his  writings  he  had 
steeled  himself,  and  half,  Europe  besides,  against  the  fear  of 
another  world,  hoAv  did  he  then  show  himself  ?  A  reliable 
informant,  Voltaire’s  own  physician,  writes  to  a  friend  as 
folloAVS :  “  When  I  compare  the  death  of  a  righteous  man,, 
which  is  like  the  close  of  a  beautiful  day,  with  that  of  Voltaire, 
I  see  the  difference  between  bright,  serene  weather  and  a  black 
thunderstorm.  It  was  my  lot  that  this  man  should  die  under 
my  hands.  Often  did  I  tell  him  the  truth,  but,  unhappily 
for  him,  I  was  the  only  person  who  did  so.  ‘  Yes,  my  friend/ 
he  would  often  say  to  me,  ‘  you  are  the  only  one  who  has 
given  me  good  advice.  Had  I  but  followed  it,  I  should  not 
be  in  the  horrible  condition  in  which  I  now  am.  I  have 
swallowed  nothing  hut  smoke ;  I  have  intoxicated  myself  Avith 
the  incense  that  turned  my  head.  You  can  do  nothing  more 
for  me.  Send  me  a  mad- doctor  !  HaAm  compassion  on  me, 
I  am  mad  !  I  cannot  think  of  it  AAuthout  shuddering.’  .  .  . 
As  soon  as  he  saAv  that  all  the  means  Avhich  he  had  emjdoyed 
to  increase  his  strength  had  just  the  opposite  effect,  death  Avas 
constantly  before  his  eyes.  From  this  moment  madness  took 
possession  of  his  soul.  Think  of  the  ravings  of  Orestes.  He 
expired  under  the  torments  of  the  furies.”  ^ 

Thus  dies  an  apostle  of  unbelief !  Worshipped  by  half  the 
AAmrld,  yet  helpless  and  despairing ;  stupefied  by  the  incense 
clouds  of  flattery,  yet  raving  mad ;  beforehand  mocking  at 
death,  now  so  convulsively  clinging  to  life  that  he  actually 
offers  great  sums  of  money  (100  francs)  for  every  minute  of 
its  prolongation  ;  beforehand  luxuriating  in  the  sensation  of 
having  gained  all  his  wishes,  and  triumphing  over  eA'erything, 
now  exclaiming  in  horror,  “  Nothing  more  can  help  me !” 

Compare  Avith  such  an  one  a  Avitness  for  God  and  for 
Christ,  e.g.  a  St.  Paul,  as  he  sees  death  approaching.  See  him 
then ;  not  enveloped  in  clouds  of  incense,  nor  overAAdielmed 
Avith  marks  of  honour,  but  bearing  in  his  body  the  scars  of 
many  wounds  inflicted  on  him  by  the  hatred  of  the  world, 
^  Bungener,  Voltaire  et  son  temps. 


284 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  SCRIPTURE. 


[lect.  IV. 


the  marks  which  he  has  received  in  the  service  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  ;  in  chains  and  degradation,  under  sentence  of  death, 
yet  free  and  strong,  cj^uiet  and  joyful ;  not  clinging  to  this 
poor  life,  hut  “  forgetting  the  things  that  are  behind,  and 
pressing  forward ;  ”  not  in  a  condition  of  horrible  agony,  but 
desiring  to  depart  and  to  be  with  Christ ;  looking  backward 
in  sweet  peace  on  the  past,  and  forward  with  blessed  hope  to 
the  future.  Hear  his  words  in  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy, 
his  last  legacy  to  the  Church :  “  I  am  ready  to  be  offered  up, 
and  the  time  of  my  departure  is  at  hand.  I  have  fought  a 
good  fight,  I  have  finished  my  course,  I  have  kept  the  faith ; 
henceforth  tliere  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  righteousness;” 
not  begging  for  help,  but  offering  lielp  to  the  world  ;  witness¬ 
ing  for  Christ  till  his  last  breath,  and  sealing  his  testimony 
with  his  blood  ; — thus  it  is  that  an  apostle  of  faith  dies  ! 

“  Choose  3mu,  therefore,  this  day  whom  3’e  will  serve ;  .  .  . 
but  as  for  me,  and  my  house,  we  will  serve  the  Lord.” 


LECTUEE  V. 


THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES. 

ISCAECELY  require  a  preliminary  apology  for  still  de¬ 
voting  a  special  discussion  to  tlie  modern  negation  of 
miracles,  after  the  examination  of  the  objections  to  the  biblical 
conception  of  God.  True,  Avhen  we  have  once  proved  the  per¬ 
sonality  and  freedom  of  God,  and  the  necessity  of  His  continued 
rule  and  operation  in  the  world,  we  have  also  proved  that 
miracles  are  possible.  To  this  extent  our  present  inquiry 
rests  entirely  on  the  previous  one.  But  since  miracles  are  the 
greatest  stumbling-hloch  to  the  spirit  of  our  age}  the  question  of 
their  ^possibility  requires  a  special  consideration.  One  of  the 
first  amonq  its  articles  of  faith  is  this  :  There  is  no  such  thing 
as  a  miracle,  and  never  has  been,  since  the  supernatural  is 
impossible.  This  unproved  assertion,  which  is  boldly  put 
forward  as  a  self-evident  axiom,  is  the  basis  of  the  rationalistic 
dismemberment  of  the  gospel  history,  and  of  those  notorious 
attempts  of  Strauss  and  Eenan  to  do  away  with  the  central 
miracle  of  history — the  life  of  Jesus  Christ — by  reducing  it  to 
legend  and  poetry, — attempts  which  have  made  the  question 
one  of  intense  interest,  especially  among  the  laity.  Upon  the 
same  axiom  are  based  the  efforts  of  Baur,  to  prove  that 
Christianity  is  only  the  sum  of  the  previously  existing,  scat¬ 
tered  germs  of  culture,  and  that  it  is  merely  a  link  in  the 
universal  development  of  the  world.  The  same  presupposition, 
moreover,  is  the  basis  of  the  most  important  modern  philoso¬ 
phical  systems,  as  well  as  a  maxim  of  most  naturalists  at  the 
present  day. 

However  much  in  other  respects  our  opponents  may  differ, 
they  all  agree  in  the  denial  of  miracles,  and  unitedly  storm 

'  The  chief  offence  Avliich  the  old  system  of  religion  necessarily  gives  to  the 
.spirit  of  onr  age,  is  its  superstitions  holief  in  miracles. — STr.AUS.s,  Lehen  Jesn, 
1SC4,  p.  xviii. 


285 


286 


THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES. 


[lect.  V. 


this  bulwark  of  the  Christian  faith ;  and  in  its  defence  we 
have  to  combat  them  all  at  once.  But  wdience  this  unanimity  ? 
Because  with  the  truth  of  mircides  the  entire  citadel  of  Christianitjj 
stands  or  falls.  For  its  beginning  is  a  miracle,  its  Author  is 
a  miracle,  its  progress  depends  upon  miracles,  and  they  will 
hereafter  be  its  consummation.  If  the  principle  of  miracles 
be  set  aside,  then  all  the  heights  of  Christianity  will  he 
levelled  with  one  stroke,  and  naught  will  remain  but  a  heap 
of  ruins.  If  we  banish  the  supernatural  from  the  Bible,  there 
is  nothing  left  us  but  the  covers  ! 

A*  glance  at  the  consequences  of  the  negation  of  miracles  will 
at  once  reveal  to  us  the  momentous  significance  of  the  question. 
The  negation  of  miracles  leads  to  the  annihilation  not  merely 
of  the  Christian  faith,  hut  of  all  religion.  As  a  rule,  anti- 
miraculists  will  not  admit  tliis.  They  imagine  that  miracles, 
and  the  doctrines  resting  upon  them,  merely  belong  to  the  out¬ 
works  of  Christianity,  and  that  even  if  these  fall,  the  essential, 
i.e.  the  moral,  truths  of  Christianity  will  still  remain.  I  have 
already  sought  to  show  how  perverted  this  conception  of 
Christianity  is.  Christianity,  in  its  real  essence,  is  not  a  definite 
quantity  of  moral  truths  or  teachings,  but  a  series  of  facts  :  it 
is  Christ  Himself,  His  person  and  work,  the  religion  of  the 
incarnation  of  God  in  Christ,  and  the  redemption  of  the  world 
therefrom  resulting.  In  other  words,  Christianity  is  essen¬ 
tially  miraculous:  its  Founder,  in  His  personality  as  the  God- 
man,  is  the  miracle  of  all  miracles,  the  miraculous  goal  towards 
wdiich  all  foregoing  miracles  were  tending,  and  of  which  all 
that  follow  are  only  an  echo.  Our  Saviour’s  earthly  life  and 
work,  from  His  sinless  birth  to  His  resurrection  and  ascension — 
all  the  chief  facts  of  redemption — are  nothing  but  miracles,  and 
His  entire  teaching,  as  well  as  the  law  and  the  prophecies  of 
the  Old  Testament,  must  be  taken  as  the  declaration  of  divine 
truths — as  a  supernatural  revelation  (John  vii.  16  ;  2  Pet.  i. 
21),  or  in  other  words,  as  a  miracle. 

The  Christian  religion,  however,  does  not  show  its  miracu¬ 
lous  character  only  in  the  facts  and  doctrines  which  constitute 
its  beginnings,  but  it  is  to  a  certain  extent  a  continuous  and 
ever-present  miracle  in  the  supemiatural  effects  which  it  pro¬ 
duces  on  nations  as  well  as  on  individuals,  in  its  constant 
victories  over  the  kingdoms  of  this  world,  and  its  experience 


LECT.  V.] 


THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES. 


287 


in  the  heart  of  the  believer.  Whoever,  therefore,  seeks  to 
exclude  from  Christianity  all  that  is  miraculous  and  super¬ 
natural,  denies  the  entire  Christian  faith  ;  he  not  merely  plucks 
from  the  tree  a  few  loose  leaves,  but  fells  the  entire  trunk,  and 
cuts  away  all  the  roots.  And  if  after  this  he  still  desires  to 
retain  the  system  of  Christian  morality,  he  is  just  as  unreason¬ 
able  as  one  who  should  first  fell  a  tree,  and  then  hope  to 
continue  in  the  enjoyment  of  its  fruit. 

But  the  denial  of  miracles  leads  to  the  annihilation,  not  only 
of  Christianity,  but  also  of  all  religions  whatever.  Bor  every 
religion  is  based  upon  the  supposition  that  certain  superhuman 
powers  extend  their  influence  into  the  sphere  ^  of  our  life.  He 
who  denies  this  immediate  action  of  higher  powers  in  the 
world,  i.e.  who  does  not  believe  in  miracles,  need  no  longer 
care  for  those  powers.  To  him  every  religion,  every  divine 
service  in  which  man  with  offerings  and  prayers,  or  by  other 
means,  approaches  his  deities  and  seeks  their  favour,  must 
appear  folly,  since  they  can  exert  no  special  influence  either 
for  or  against  their  suppliant.  That  this  is  the  case  with 
those  who  entertain  pantheistic  conceptions  of  God,  as  having 
no  personal  existence,  is  plainly  evident.  But  even  if,  with 
the  Deists,  we  grant  Him  personal  e.xistence,  yet  entirely 
separate  Him  from  the  world,  and  abandon  the  latter  to  its 
own  laws,  the  same  result  follows.  We  need  not  care  much 
for  God,  for  neither  does  He  care  specially  for  us  ;  nor  have  we 
much  need  of  divine  service  and  prayer,  for  God  cannot  really 
interfere  wdth  our  life.  He  has  no  freedom  of  action  in  oppo¬ 
sition  to  the  course  of  nature,  no  true  vitality,  no  continuous 
activity  :  He  is  only  a  sleeping,  inactive,  listless  Something 
above  the  world,  but  wdthout  communication  with  it,  like  the 
dot  over  the  i.  Is  such  a  Being  a  God  worthy  of  wmi'ship,  or 
indeed  a  God  at  all  ? 

You  see  here  the  truth  of  the  proposition  uttered  long  since 
by  Nitzsch,  that  the  denial  of  miracles  involves  the  denial  of 
the  free,  living,  'personal  God.  Those  who,  like  the  Katioualists, 
deny  the  former  and  seek  to  maintain  the  latter,  are  guilty  of 
illogical  reasoning. 

’  An  enemy  of  religion,  at  the  Peace  Congress  in  Berne,  Aug.  1865,  said  very 
truly,  “  All  religions,  however  diverse  their  creeds  may  be,  have  the  miraculous 
element  in  common  with  each  other.” 


288 


THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES. 


[lect.  V. 


The  denial  of  the  personality  and  living  activity  of  God 
subverts  not  only  all  religion,  but  also  the  moral  2^1^'^'sonality 
of  man  ;  for  both  these,  as  we  have  seen,  stand  or  fall  together. 
By  completely  severing  this  world  from  a  higher  one,  the 
denial  of  miracles  confines  us  entirely  to  our  present  temporal 
existence,  and  leaves  us  without  any  safeguard  against  the 
worst  Materialism.  Only  consider  what  an  effect  the  extermi¬ 
nation  of  miracles  would  have  on  our  personal  life  !  With 
regard  to  this,  a  recent  advocate  of  miracles^  strikingly  says  : 
“  Didst  thou  believe  that  thou  couldst  trace  the  guiding  hand 
of  thy  God  at  many  a  turning-point  of  thy  history — fancies, 
pure  junctures  of  nature,  which  neither  know  of  thee  nor 
inquire  after  thee  ?  Thou  beseechest  God  for  the  recovery  of 
a  child  at  the  point  of  death — unnecessary  trouble  !  from  a 
blind,  deaf  process  of  nature  thy  trembling  heart  must  await 
its  destiny !  Thou  feelest  at  the  coffin  of  a  father,  or  a  hus¬ 
band,  that  tlie  bands  of  love  cannot  be  sundered  for  ever — 
dreams  !  there  is  no  resurrection.  Thou  sighest  after  divine 
help  for  the  conquest  of  evil — in  vain  !  the  new  birth  itself 
would  be  an  unnatural  interruption  of  thy  naturally  sinful 
development.  Sayest  thou,  tliat  thou  hast  experienced  this 
very  miracle  ?  They  ansu’er.  Self-deception  !  Proud  man, 
who  hast  dreamed  of  becoming  perfect  as  thy  Father  in  heaven 
is  perfect,  of  a  glory  which  was  destined  for  thee  before  the 
world  was,  why  wfilt  thou  aspire  to  be  something  better  than 
the  entire  universe  ?  why  wfilt  thou  become  holy  and  happy  ? 
‘  Let  us  eat  and  drink,  for  to-morrow  wm  die  !’  Such  is  the 
logical  consequence  of  the  denial  of  miracles.  The  same  grave 
in  wdiich  modern  heathenism  buries  the  miraculous,  swallows 
up  everything  wdiich  gives  to  human  existence  an  ideal 
character,  a  true  value  :  the  soul  made  in  the  divine  image, 
faith  and  prayer,  the  holy  person  of  the  Ptedeemer,  the  entire 
system  of  Christian  truth,  the  future  wmrld,  the  living  God  !” 
But,  perchance,  the  w’orld  might  be  found  too  small,  as  w’ell 
as  the  arm  of  the  grave-diggers  too  w’eak,  to  bury  all  these 
together. 

When  w’C  thus  see  how  great  the  victory  would  be  if  our 
adversaries  were  able  to  banish  miracles,  and  -why  they  concen¬ 
trate  their  attacks  upon  this  point,  wm'  cannot  wonder  that 
‘  Beysclilag,  Ueber  die  Bedeutang  des  Wunders  im  Clcrlstenthum. 


LECT.  V.]  THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES. 


289 


here  the  believing  Christian  should  be  determined  not  to  yield 
an  inch.  To  him  there  is  nothing  so  firmly  established  as  the 
miraculous  ;  because,  in  the  first  place,  faith  itself  is  a  miracle. 
What  Hamann  says  is  true  :  “  ]\Iiracles  cannot  even  be  believed 
without  a  miracle.”  And  so,  to  one  who  has  experienced  in 
his  own  heart  through  the  power  of  Christ  and  His  Spirit  the 
miracle  of  regeneration,  this  miraculous  power  is  the  most 
certain  of  all  things.  Here,  then,  for  more  than  two  hundred 
years  the  contest  has  been  hottest,  against  this  foundation  the 
universal  assault  has  been  directed,  and  from  it  all  defence 
proceeds.  Therefore  this  question  deserves  an  especially  care¬ 
ful  consideration. 

Such  of  you,  my  respected  hearers,  as  still  adhere  to  the 
biblical  faith  have  now  and  then  been  somewhat  perplexed  at 
hearing  everywhere,  in  the  street  and  in  the  daily  papers, 
attacks  upon  the  miracles  related  in  Holy  Scripture.  Against 
you  stood  the  close  phalanx  of  your  adversaries :  on  the  one 
side,  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  and  a  certain  premonition 
that  with  the  surrender  of  this  article  of  our  faith  all  would  be 
lost ;  and  on  the  other,  so  many  distinguished  scientific 
names !  If,  then,  the  judgment  of  many  a  one  began  to 
tremble,  and  still  trembles  in  the  balance,  I  would  seek  accord¬ 
ing  to  my  ability  to  help  him  to  attain  a  firm  conviction,  and 
will  first  afford  him  the  consolation  that,  thoimh  the  adver- 
saries  are  many,  there  are  not  a  few  scientific  defenders  of  the 
miraculous.  If  many  rationalists,  philosophers,  critics,  and  natu¬ 
ralists  are  on  the  other  side,  there  are  on  ours — to  say  nothing 
of  the  Prophets  and  Apostles — great  philosophers  and  theoso- 
phists,  from  Jacob  Bohme  and  Leibnitz  down  to  Schelling  in 
his  later  period ;  great  naturalists,  from  Copernicus,  Newton, 
and  Kepler,  to  von  Haller,  Schubert,  Cuvier,  Marrel  de  Serres, 
Pougemont,  Hugh  Miller,  Eudolphus,  and  Andrew  Wagner, 
etc.;  and  besides  these,  the  great  majority  of  the  representatives 
of  our  present  scientific  German  Theology,  among  whom  the 
contest  is  considered  as  essentially  decided  in  favour  of  the 
faith,  not  only  on  dogmatical,  but  also  on  exegetical,  historical, 
and  speculative  grounds. 

We  divide  the  questions  which  meet  us  here  as  follows : 
(1)  After  an  exposition  of  the  true  nature  of  miracles,  we  shall 
consider  the  origin  of  their  negation,  and  the  presuppositions 

X 


290 


THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES, 


[LECT.  V. 


on  which  this  negation  is  founded,  so  that  we  may  be  able  to 
oppose  to  it  a  closer  examination  and  proof  of  the  loossibility 
of  the  miraculous.  Thence  we  proceed  (2)  to  the  positive 
counter-evidence  for  the  necessity  of  miracles.  To  this  end  we 
must  exhibit  their  internal  aim,  their  indispensableness  in  the 
plan  of  redemption  and  the  education  of  man,  their  historical 
manifestation  and  laws,  the  possibility  of  discerning  their 
genuineness,  and  their  foundation  on  fact.  (3)  In  conclusion, 
we  must  briefly  discuss  the  question  of  the  continnance  of 
miracles  in  our  own  times,  in  order  to  meet  those  objectors 
who  ask  why  miracles  are  no  longer  performed. 


I. - THE  NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 

(a)  Nature  of  Miracles. — In  the  nse  of  the  word  miracle,  as 
in  that  of  revelation,  we  must  discriminate  between  a  wider 
and  a  narrower  sense.  In  the  wider  sense,  we  often  use  it  of 
all  that  is  incomprehensible  and  extraordinary  in  nature  and 
history,  of  which  the  origin  is  still  concealed  from  us,  or  the 
existence  of  which  excites  our  astonishment.  So  it  occurs  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  where  mention  is  made  of  God’s  miracles  (or 
wonders)  upon  the  sea,  in  the  creation  and  guidance  of  man, 
and  where  man  himself  is  called  a  wonder  (Ps.  cxxxix.  14), 
But  in  the  narrower  sense,  miracles  are  (with  the  exception  of 
tlie  demoniacal  miracles  ^  occasionally  mentioned  in  Scripture) 
unique  and  extraordinary  manifestations  of  divine  power,  which  . 
influence  nature  in  a  manner  incomprehensible  to  our  empirical 

'  On  this  dark  question,  mostly  disregarded  by  the  apologists  of  the  day,  vre 
■will  only  remark,  that  the  opinion  held  by  many,  that  these  are  only  to  he  con¬ 
sidered  as  lying,  or  delusively  imitated,  but  not  as  real  miracles,  is  scarcely  con¬ 
formable  to  the  sense  of  the  passages,  2  Thess.  ii.  9,  Matt.  xxiv.  24,  Rev.  xiii. 

13.  To  be  sure,  St.  Paul  speaks  of  them  as  “  lying  wonders ;  ”  but  if  this  were  to 
be  understood  only  in  the  sense  of  jugglery,  cordd  they  in  other  passages  properly 
be  called  great  signs  and  wonders  ”  ?  They  are  lying,  because  they  serve  a  lie, 
they  proceed  from  a  lie,  and  a  lie  is  their  goal,  since  their  object  is  to  obliterate 
the  impression  of  the  witnesses  for  the  truth  (Ex.  vii.  12-22,  viii.  7 ;  2  Tim.  iii, 

8)  ; — “because  they  appear  to  attest  the  so-called  gods  as  true  gods  ;  because  the 
powers  which  their  originators  use  are  only  stolen  and  abused  ;  because  they  are 
the  means  of  promoting  error,  falsehood,  and  destruction  ;  because  they  pretend 
to  be  something  else  than  they  are,  and  to  work  good,  while  they  further  and 
promote  evil  ”  (Kurtz).  It  cannot  be  denied  that  heathenism,  besides  much 
fraud  and  superstition,  has  also  exhibited  facts  which  can  only  be  explained  a« 


LECT.  V.]  THE  NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 


291 


knowledge,  but  always  in  accordance  with  some  moral  or 
spiritual  end.  Or,  more  exactly,  they  are  creative  acts  of  God, 
i.e.  supernatural  exertions  of  power  upon  certain  points  of 
Nature’s  domain,  through  which,  by  virtue  of  His  own  might 
already  working  in  the  course  of  nature,  God,  for  the  further¬ 
ance  of  His  kingdom,  brings  forth  some  new  thing  which 
natural  substances  or  causalities  could  not  have  produced  by 
themselves,  but  which, — and  this  must  not  be  overlooked, — as 
soon  as  they  have  taken  place,  range  themselves  in  the  natural 
course  of  things,  without  any  disturbance  arising  on  their 
account. 

The  essential  points  in  the  eonception  of  miracles,  strictly  so 
called,  are  these  : 

1.  They  are  effects  of  God's  power  in  the  domain  of  Nature. 
Miracles,  in  every  case,  are  only  performed  through  divine 
might:  “Who  alone  doeth  great  wonders”  (Ps.  cxxxvi.  14). 
IMan  only  performs  them  through  God,  and  in  unison  with  Him, 
i.e.  he  is  permittted  by  divine  authority,  in  the  name  of  God 
(cf.  the  miracles  of  Moses)  or  of  Christ  (Acts  hi.  6,  iv.  10), 
to  summon  God’s  power,  which  pervades  the  creation,  to  a 
concentrated  and  intensified  action  at  some  definite  point,  and 
thus  to  bring  forth  extraordinary  effects  for  definite  holy  ends. 
Christ,  on  account  of  His  unique  oneness  with  the  Father, 
possessed  this  divine  power  in  an  extraordinary  degree,  not 
merely  transiently  like  the  prophets  and  apostles,  but  con¬ 
tinually.  Hence,  although,  on  the  one  hand.  He  can  “  do 
nothing  of  Flimself,”  but  only  the  works  “  which  the  Father,, 
hath  given  Him  ”  (John  v.  19,  20,  36,  x.  25,  xi.  41),  yet,  on 

the  result  of  demoniacal  influences.  Hence  the  severity  of  the  Mosaic  enact¬ 
ments  against  all  heathen  magic,  which  cannot  well  he  explained  on  the 
supposition  that  the  whole  was  only  an  illusion.  Demoniacal  miracles  are 
indeed  servile  imitations  of  the  divine  working,  and  thence  they  receive  their 
seductive  appearance  and  influence.  But  their  full  power  to  captivate  the  judg¬ 
ment  lies  in  the  fact  that  they  are  really  supernatural,  although  their  working 
is  not  above  the  power  of  the  creature.  But  at  the  same  time  we  maintain  that 
even  these  miracles,  and  especially  those  still  impending  as  the  culminating 
point  of  Satanic  working  in  the  last  decisive  struggle  between  light  and  darkness 
(according  to  the  previous  passages),  are,  like  all  the  powers  ol  darkness,  under 
God’s  direction  and  control.  They  are  regulated  and  restricted  by  the  divine 
government  of  the  world,  they  appertain  to  the  revelation  of  divine  wrath,  are 
not  immediately  decreed,  but  permitted  and  judicially  inflicted  in  puni.shment 
lor  human  frivolity  and  unbeliei,  2  Thess.  ii.  10-12  ;  Matt,  x.viv.  24.  Ci.  below, 
remarks  on  the  discernibility  of  miracles. 


292  THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES.  [LECT.  V. 

the  other,  He  reveals  therein  not  only  God’s  glory,  but  at  the 
same  time  His  own  (John  ii.  11  comp,  with  xi.  40),  because 
His  oneness  with  the  Father  extends  to  His  power  also  (John 
V.  21,  X.  28,  29).  Hot  as  if  during  His  earthly  course  He 
were  to  be  considered  as  “  walking  Omnipotence  ;  ”  on  the  con¬ 
trary,  He  was  to  unfold  and  work  out  the  divine  life  dwelling 
within  Him  in  growing  communion  with  the  Father,  and  there¬ 
fore  He  regarded  His  miraculous  acts  as  something  done  in 
virtue  of  a  command  received  from  the  Father  (John  xi.  41, 
42).  But  through  the  personal  union  of  the  world-creating 
Word  with  His  human  nature,  through  the  fulness  of  the  God¬ 
head  dwelling  in  Him  bodily  (Col.  ii.  9),  as  well  as  through  His 
perfect  sinlessness.  His  dynamic  relation  to  nature  was  entirely 
different  to  that  of  other  men,  so  that  He  possessed  an  indwell¬ 
ing  causality  of  wmrking  miracles,  which  needed  only  to  be 
evoked  from  above.  For  this  reason  also  He  manifested  His 
own  glory  in  His  miracles  (comp.  John  ix.  33,  x.  37).  This  is 
our  stand-point  in  opposition  not  only  to  those  who  consider 
Him  as  pure  Omnipotence,  but  also  to  those  who  would  place 
Him  on  the  same  footing  with  other  human  workers  of 
miracles.  As  operations  of  divine  power,  miracles  are — 

2.  Sujpernahiral  'plmiomtna,  the  effective  causes  of  which 
cannot  be  found  in  the  usual  course  of  nature,  nor  in  the 
spirit  of  man,  but  only  in  the  immediate  interposition  of  higher 
divine  powers.  Here,  therefore,  all  analogical  conception  ceases ; 
we  cannot  connect  the  miracle  with  our  natural  experience, 
but  Ave  can  only  say,  “  This  is  the  finger  of  God  ”  (Ex.  viii. 
19).  So  far  the  conception  of  miracles  belongs  to  the  cri¬ 
tique  of  our  knoAvledge.^  We  call  that  a  miracle  for  which 
we  can  find  no  analogy  Avhatever  in  that  which  has  previ 
ously  existed,  i.e.  in  the  established  s^^stem  of  our  empirical 
knowledge.  ^  For  the  miracle  is — 

'  Hence  it  has  been  truly  said,  “The  word  miracle  is  a  critical  designation, 
and  a  sign  of  the  critically  active  s])irit  which  measures  that  which  now  hap¬ 
pens  by  that  which  has  already  happened.”— Meiirixg,  Relhiionsvhilosophle, 
■S.  197  ff. 

-  By  this  I  mean  the  totality  of  knowledge  attainable  by  us  as  creatures.  I 
do  not  refer  merely  to  a  lower  degree  of  knowledge,  according  to  which  many 
thingfs  might  seem  to  bo  miracles  which  on  closer  e.xamination  woidd  prove  to 
be  natural  events,  for  this  would  render  the  nature  of  miracles  merely  relative 
and  sirbjective. 


LECT.  V.]  THE  NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 


293 


3.  Always  a  beginning  of  something  neio  (Ex.  xxxiv.  10  ; 
Nnm.  xvi.  30;  Isa.  Ixv.  17  ;  Jer.  xxxi.  32),  a  creative  act; 
partly  an  absolute  calling  into  existence  of  new  substances 
(as  at  the  creation),  partly  a  supernatural  transformation, 
intensification,  or  increase  of  an  already  existing  material. 
Miracles  in  the  narrower  sense  belong,  with  the  exception  of 
the  miracle  of  creation, 

4.  To  the  'preservation  and  government  of  the  world.  They 
have  become  necessary  because  corruption  has  entered  the 
world ;  they  not  only  attest  God’s  creative,  but  especially  His 
redeeming  fower. 

5.  For  this  reason,  finally,  the  object  of  miracles  is  one  of 
moral  holiness  in  mercy  and  judgment — a  redemptive  ohject. 
They  tend  to  the  furtherance  of  the  divine  kingdom,  to  the 
salvation  and  consummation  of  the  world.  In  the  present 
material  creation,  they  are  isolated  manifestations  of  a  higher 
order  of  things,  effected  by  a  special  power  from  above. 

The  different  expressions — “wonders,  signs,  mighty  deeds” 
(or  “  powers”) — which  are  used  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
already  indicate  this.  The  miracle  or  wonder  fepa'i,  Oavga), 
in  the  first  place,  is  meant  to  astonish ;  it  is  intended,  as  some¬ 
thing  striking  and  extraordinary,  to  work  upon  the  moral 
consciousness,  and  to  draw  attention  to  itself.  Further,  it  is 
intended  to  make  ns  reflect ;  we  are  to  perceive  in  it  some¬ 
thing  of  what  God  is  doing,  and  is  about  to  do.  Thus  it  be¬ 
comes  a  “  sign  ”  (a-giielov)  to  direct  us  in  the  knowledge  of  the 
ways  of  God,  and  a  pledge  of  His  truth  and  faithfulness — -an 
earnest  of  the  future  consummation  of  His  kingdom.  Through 
such  reflections  we  finally  arrive  at  the  recognition  of  the 
higher  supernatural  “  powers  ”  {Suvagea;),  and  of  the  “  mighty 
deeds  ”  of  God,  which  are  revealed  in  miracles  ;  or  if  men  woik 
them,  we  recognise  their  divine  mission.  For'  miracles  must 
everywhere  reveal  something  of  the  omnipotent,  just,  and  holy 
God,  but  especially  of  the  merciful  God,  and  of  His  work  of 
redemption  upon  earth.  Hence,  although  the  miracle  cannot 
be  comprehended,  because  it  is  God’s  most  especial  act,  yet  it 
should  be  apprehended  in  its  divine  intention,  as  a  sign  for 
our  faith. 

The  “  spiritual  miracles’,'  i.e.  the  mighty  workings  of  God  and 
of  His  Spirit  in  the  depths  of  the  human  soul,  occupy,  us  it 


2  94  THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES.  [lEGT.  V. 

were,  a  middle  position  betM^een  miracles  in  tlie  wider  and  those 
in  the  narrower  sense.  Here,  too,  God  places  Himself  in  im¬ 
mediate  relation  to  a  human  creature,  and  brings  forth  in  him 
effects  which  never  could  have  been  produced  through  natural 
forces  or  influences ;  effects  such  as  spiritual  enlightenment, 
conversion,  regeneration,  consolation,  peace,  etc.  These  may 
rightly  be  called  miracles,  for  faith  is  always  a  kind  of  miracle  ; 
and  these  spiritual  miracles  are  the  necessary  pre-condition  of 
a  genuine  development  of  the  Christian  life — a  pre-condition 
which  is  demanded  by'  the  very  idea  of  religion.  But  they 
are  not  miracles  in  the  strict  sense,  i.e.  effects  of  God’s  work¬ 
ing  upon  definite  points  of  Nature’s  domain.  As  distinct  from 
the  latter,  we  must  finally  mention  the  special  miracles  of 
insjnration.  By  this  ^ye  understand  those  peculiar  workings 
of  God  upon  individual  men,  through  which  He  imparts  to 
them,  in  an  especial  excitement  of  their  spiritual  and  mental 
life,  new  religious  truths,  allows  them  to  have  a  con¬ 
crete  and  immediate  vision  of  future  developments  in  the 
plan  of  the  world  and  of  the  divine  kingdom,  in  order  that 
under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  they  may  testify  of  this 
before  others.  These  miracles  of  inspiration  and  prophecy,  as 
extraordinarij  spiritual  processes,  correspond  still  more  directly 
than  the  last-named  class  to  the  conception  of  miracles,  and 
will  therefore  be  considered  by  many  a  separate  kind,  in 
which  God  partly  worJcs  something  new  (manifestation),  partly 
says  something  new  (inspiration ;  comp.  Isa.  xlii.  9,  xlviii.  6, 
1  Cor.  ii.  9,  10).  We  find  both  kinds,  the  external  miraculous 
acts,  and  the  internal  miracles  of  inspiration,  combined  in  the 
chief  instruments  of  revelation,  such  as  ]\Ioses,  some  of  the 
Prophets,  the  Apostles,  and  to  the  highest  degree  in  Christ. 

The  modern  aversion  to  miracles,  therefore,  also  extends  to 
both  kinds.  We  endeavoured  to  refute  the  objections  against 
the  miracles  of  inspiration  in  the  chapter  on  Eevelation ;  we 
now  have  to  do,  with  the  attacks  upon  external  miracles  of 
manifestation,  as  miracles  in  the  stricter  sense.  W’^hence  their 
negation  ? 

ih)  Origin  of  the  Negation  of  Miracles. — The  negation  of 
miracles  is  almost  as  old  as  miracles  themselves.  Moses,  the 
first  human  worker  of  miracles  mentioned  in  Scripture,  is 
opposed  by  ITiaraoh,  the  first  denier  of  miracles,  who,  with  his 


LECT.  V.]  THE  NATUHE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIBACLE3. 


2')  5 


inward  repugnance  to  the  recognition  of  immediate  divine 
working,  stands  before  us  as  a  projihecy  and  a  warning. 
The  generation,  too,  before  the  flood  was  one  which  denied 
miracles,  which,  while  it  resisted  the  inner  striving  of  God’s 
Spirit  (Gen.  vi.  o),  was  driven  to  consider  God’s  mighty  work¬ 
ing  in  external  nature  as  impossible.  This  points  us  to  the 
true  source  of  the  negation  of  miracles,  viz.  that  as  a  rule 
it  rests  not  so  much  on  external  as  on  internal  and  moral 
grounds,  from  which,  indeed,  all  estrangement  from  our  faith 
usually  proceeds.  How  hard  it  was  even  in  the  time  of 
Christ  for  the  learned  Israelites  to  believe  in  His  most  mani¬ 
fest  miracles,  is  plainly  shown  in  the  liistory  of  the  man  wdio 
was  born  blind  (John  ix.).  ^Nevertheless  the  opposition  at 
that  time,  as  w'ell  as  during  the  first  centuries  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  \vas  not  directed  against  the  possibility  of  effects 
produced  by  supernatural  causes.  Jews  and  Gentiles  both 
believed  in  this.  Even  the  enemies  of  Christ  did  not  deny 
His  miracles  (Matt,  xxvii.  42  ;  John  xi.  47,  48  ;  Acts  iv.  16). 
It  was  rather  the  moral  value  and  the  divine  origin  of  these 
mighty  works  which  wms  doubted;  the  iinbelieving  Jews 
ascribing  them  to  demoniacal  powers  (“  He  casteth  out  devils 
through  Beelzebub,  the  chief  of  the  devils”),  and  the  heathen 
afterwards  placing  Christ  in  the  same  category  as  their  pagan 
sorcerers  and  wonder-workers. 

For  the  last  two  hundred  years,  however,  men  have  begun 
absolutely  to  deny  the  possibility  of  miracles,  and  to  reject 
every  supernatural  manifestation,  from  wdiatever  quarter  it  may 
come,  as  being  unhistorical,  because  impossible.  This  wms  first 
done  by  the  English  Deists.  They  gradually  advanced  from 
the  negation  of  the  Old  Testament  miracles  to  the  denial  of 
those  in  the  New,  and  from  the  quest  for  historical  inqiossi- 
bilities  and  internal  contradictions  in  their  narration  to  an 
utterly  frivolous  explanation  of  them.  Chubb,  e.^.,  observes 
that  if  these  miracles  are  to  be  considered  as  historical,  they 
must  have  been  base  impositions.  Eenan  has  lately  main¬ 
tained  substantially  tlie  same  opinion  in  respect  of  the  resur¬ 
rection  of  Lazarus ;  but  it  had  long  since  been  pushed  to  the 
extreme  by  Voltaire,  wdio  pronounced  the  heroes  ot  the  Bible 
to  be  knaves  and  fools,  and  the  gospel  history  in  general  a  lie 
and  a  deception,  Hume,  in  his  A'ssay  on  Uirados^  undertook 


/ 


2.36  THE  MODEUN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES.  ‘  [LECT.  V. 

a  systematic  refutation  of  their  possibility,  endeavouring  to 
show  that  miracles  are  violations  of  the  laws  of  nature,  and  that 
the  doubtful  testimony  of  a  few  for  their  authenticity  cannot 
avail  against  the  universal  experience  of  the  inviolability  of 
these  laws.  We  shall  recur  to  this  again.  Before  Hume, 
Spinoza  had  sought  to  get  rid  of  miracles  by  appealing  to 
the  laws  of  nature.  “  The  laws  of  nature,”  said  he,  “  are  the 
only  realization  of  the  divine  will ;  if  anything  in  nature 
could  happen  to  contradict  them,  God  would  contradict 
Himself.” 

Notwithstanding  the  endeavours  of  the  philosophy  of  Leib¬ 
nitz  and  Wolff  to  defend  the  possibility  of  miracles,  Bation- 
alism  continued  to  oj)pose  them  on  the  same  grounds.  In 
this  particular  our  modern  philosophy  in  general  follows  the 
lead  of  Spinoza  and  Hume  ;  but  it  is  now  assisted  in  ’its 
attack  on  miracles  especially  by  Neiv  Testament  Criticism 
and  the  Natured  Sciences.  Each  in  its  own  way  seeks  to 
carry  out  the  principle  of  the  natural  explanation  of  all 
phenomena  in  nature  and  history.  All  of  them,  especially  the 
natural  sciences,  have  already  cleared  up  so  many  hitherto 
dark  processes,  and  have  made  such  progress  in  the  knowledge 
of  the  universal  laws  of  nature,  that  we  must  not  be  surprised 
to  find  them  too  hastily  trying  to  establish  the  boundaries  of 
the  possible  and  the  impossible,  and  xrtterly  denying  the  in¬ 
comprehensible,  which  must  elude  our  natural  understanding. 
In  these  endeavours  opponents  of  the  miraculous  are  supported 
by  the  universal  tendency  of  our  age,  not  to  endure  any  hind 
of  mono])oly.  This  age  is  a  universal  leveller ;  it  seeks  every¬ 
where  to  obliterate  differences  as  much  as  possible,  and  has 
even  proceeded,  as  we  know,  to  the  insane  attempt  to  bridge 
over  the  gulf  between  man  and  beast.  It  endeavours  to  con¬ 
fine  everything  to  universal  fixed  laws,  and  brooks  no  excep¬ 
tions.  But  miracles  are  a  kind  of  monopoly  which  the 
supernatural  world  has  reserved  for  itself  and  its  instruments. 
It  is  by  virtue  of  an  exception  to  the  general  rule  that  Ghris- 
tianity  and  Judaism  occupy  so  prominent  a  position  in  history. 
He  who  attempts  to  degrade  them  from  this  peculiar  position 
to  the  ordinary  and  natural  course  of  things,  and  to  deprive 
them  of  the  monopoly  of  their  divine  origin,  is  doubtless  con¬ 
sciously  or  unconsciously  led  by  this  universal  impulse  of  our 


LECT.  V.]  THE  NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 


297 


age  to  reduce  everything  to  the  same  level.  This  impulse 
ensily  leads  to  the  denial  of  the  difference  of  dispensations  in 
the  divine  methods  of  revelation  and  in  the  education  of 
mankind,  and  linally,  to  the  statement  that  what  does  not 
happen  in  these  days  never  can  have  happened. 

klany  are  averse  to  the  miraculous  through  fear  of  su'persti- 
tion.  They  think  that  if  they  accept  the  miracles  of  Scripture, 
they  cannot  withhold  their  assent  to  a  multitude  of  apocryphal 
miracles,  nor,  indeed,  to  the  pretensions  of  all  sorts  of  necro¬ 
mancers  and  wizards.  In  this,  however,  they  overlook  the 
sharp  discrimination  of  Scripture  between  belief  and  supersti¬ 
tion,  between  miraculous  power  and  witchcraft.  Whereas  the 
heathen  sorcerer  pretends  to  make  the  supernatural  powers  sub¬ 
servient  to  his  2^ cr son,  the  prophet  or  apostle,  if  he  performs  a 
miracle,  accounts  himself  only  the  instrument  of  God.  Thus 
Peter  says  to  the  Jews  (Acts  iii.),  after  the  healing  of  a  lame 
man,  “  Why  look  ye  so  earnestly  on  us,  as  though  by  our  own 
power  or  holiness  we  had  made  this  man  to  walk  ?  By  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Nazareth  doth  this  man  stand  before 
you  whole”  (Acts  iv.  10).  Whereas  the  sorcerer  or  magician 
seeks  his  own  honour  {e.g.  Acts  viii.  9)  by  means  of  his  art, 
the  workers  of  miracles  in  Holy  Scripture  ascribe  all  the  glory 
to  God,  because  it  is  not  they  who  perform  the  miracles  by 
virtue  of  any  natural  or  artihcial  power  of  their  own,  nor  by 
any  secret  charm  or  spell  containing  such  power,  but  it  is 
God  alone  who  works.  The  Son  Himself  seeks,  through  His 
works,  not  His  own  honour,  but  that  of  the  Father  (John 
viii.  50,  54).  Hence  these  God-sent  workers  cannot  use  the 
divine  power  arbitrarily,  but  only  by  virtue  of  the  highest 
personal  and  spiritual  communion  with  God,  according  to  the 
teachings  and  purposes  of  His  will.  Only  notice  the  noiseless 
unobtrusiveness  of  miracles  in  Holy  Scripture,  the  chastity 
with  which  Christ  sharply  repels  the  vain  curiosity  and  vulgar 
thirst  of  His  age  for  wonders,  and  His  frequent  prohibition  of 
their  publication  (Matt.  xvi.  1-4,  xii.  38-39  ;  Mark  viii. 
11-13  ;  Matt.  ix.  30,  xii.  16,  xvi.  20;  Mark  i.  44,  iii.  12, 
etc.).  Compare  with  these  features  the  sensational  miracles 
in  the  Eomish  and  Oriental  churches, — images  of  saints  who 
sweat  blood,  who  nod  the  head,  who  roll  the  eyes, — or  the 
Whitsuntide  miracles  among  the  Greeks  and  Armenians  at 


298 


THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES. 


[lect.  V. 


Jerusalem,  when  the  Holy  Ghost  lights  up  candles,  (but  not 
hearts)  ;  and  you  will  confess  that  such  feats  of  legerdemain 
and  jugglery  betray,  in  their  external  pomp  and  straining  after 
effect,  anything  but  a  divine  origin.  A  glance  at  the  internal 
evidences  of  truth  in  miracles,  at  their  moral  and  religious 
character,  wjiich  reflects  and  serves  not  only  the  power  of 
God,  but  also  His  truth  and  holiness,  and  must  prove  pre¬ 
eminently  their  divine  origin,  will  show  that  it  is  not  a  very 
difficult  task  for  one  to  defend  his  belief  in  the  biblical 
miracles  against  the  charge  of  superstition. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  however,  that  not  the  believers  in 
miracles,  but  their  deniers,  fall  most  easily  into  superstition. 
How  often  one  can  observe  their  “  half  fearful,  half  prurient 
listening  for  the  supposed  higher  powers  of  nature  !”  If  there 
is  a  spiritual  medium,  a  clairvoyante,  or  a  fortune-teller,  they 
are  the  first  to  consult  this  oracle.  For  unbelief  and  super¬ 
stition  are  most  intimately  connected.  “  When  men  no 
longer  believe  in  God,  they  begin  to  believe  in  ghosts.  In 
truth,  tliere  has  scarcely  ever  been  an  age  in  which  men  have 
snatched  more  greedily  after  the  extravagant  than  our  own, 
which  derides  the  supernatural:”^  a  proof  that  only  faith, 
and  not  unbelief,  can  fully  overcome  superstition. 

And  here  we  observe,  that  in  the  iiemrtive  of  miracles 
internal  causes  must  co-operate  with  all  the  assumed  historic 
or  scientific  reasons.  As  in  the  time  of  IMoses,  so  in  these 
times,  there  are  many  who  have  never  confessed  to  the  work¬ 
ings  of  divine  power  in  their  own  hearts,  and  who  are  there¬ 
fore  inwardly  compelled  to  dispute  the  external  working  of 
God  in  nature  and  history.  And  this  the  more,  inasmuch  as 
the  divine  miracles  appeal  far  less  to  our  merely  logical  sense 
than  to  our  moral  judgment.  Only  he  who  experiences  and 
admits  the  spiritual  miracles  wrought  by  the  finger  of  God 
in  his  own  experience,  can  readily  raise  his  mind  to  the  idea 
of  an  especial  working  of  God’s  power  in  external  nature. 
Only  that  man  can  believe  in  miracles  (which  are  throughout 
designed  for  the  moral  and  religious  training  of  mankind)  who 
can  testify  from  the  depths  of  his  own  experience  the  reality 
of  such  a  training. 

•  c.  The  Theoretical  Frcsiqoposition  in  the  negation  of  the 
*  Schenkel,  JEas  Wahrhdt?  S.  22. 


LECT.  V.]  THE  NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 


299 


miraculous,  is  partly  a  false,  naturalistic  conception  of  God, 
partly  a  mechanical  concepition  of  the  world.  The  former  of 
these  conceptions  impels  Pantheism,  the  latter  impels  Deism 
and  Eationalism,  to  deny  the  possibility  of  miracles.  If  God 
has  no  personal  existence  apart  from  nature,  and  if  lie  is 
merely  the  unconscious  fettered  Soul  of  the  Universe,  then  He 
is  entirely  bound  by  the  laws  of  nature,  and  nothing  remains 
but  to  adopt  Spinoza’s  principle.  This  one-sided  conception 
of  the  divine  immanence  in  the  world  must  anniliilate  all 
miracles.  On  the  other  hand,  we  may  start  with  the  supposi¬ 
tion  that  God  is  actually  separated  from  the  world  ;  that  the 
world,  having  been  left  to  itself  after  the  creation,  has  become 
independent,  and  continues  its  course  mechanically ;  nor  does 
it  need  the  special  providence  of  God,  since  its  laws  and 
regulations  are  perfectly  adequate  for  its  further  development. 
From  this  we  must  infer  that  no  miraculous  interference  of 
God  in  the  course  of  nature  is  possible,  since  only  a  disturb¬ 
ance  of  the  universal  order  would  result.  In  this  case  the 
one-sided  conception  of  the  divine  transcendence,  and  the  com¬ 
plete  emancipation  of  the  world  from  God’s  power,  makes  the 
miraculous  impossible.  These  two  hypotheses  are,  it  is  true, 
opposed  to  each  other;  for  in  the  one  God  is  entirely  lost  in 
nature,  in  the  other  He  is  absolutely  separated  from  it.  But 
they  both  agree  in  maintaining  that  the  world,  as  it  now 
exists,  no  longer  needs  a  special  divine  influence,  and  that  it 
must  continue  to  develope  itself  unassisted  according  to  its 
indwelling  laws. 

o 

In  addition  to  this,  it  is  further  presupposed  that  these 
mundane  laws  are  absolutely  perfect,  that  the  present  condition 
of  the  world  is  a  normal  one,  and  that  therefore  every  interfer¬ 
ence,  from  whatever  source  it  may  come,  can  only  occasion  a 
disturbance. 

In  these  presuppositions  there  lies  a  threefold  fundamental 
error.  First,  the  relation  in  which  God  is  placed  to  the  world  is 
false  and  untenable.  God  is  neither  identical  with  the  world, 
nor  is  He  completely  separated  from  it.  We  have  recognised 
the  former  as  the  error  of  Pantheism,  the  latter  as  that  of  Deism. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  have  recognised  this  as  the  truth,  that 
God  works  by  His  ivill  in  the  world  no  less  than  He  possesses 
His  essence  as  distinct  from  it ;  that  He  is  actually,  vitally 


300  THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES.  [lECT.  V. 

present  in  it  no  less  than  He  is  personally  free  from  it.  In 
the  union  of  these  two  elements,  the  suprainundane  person¬ 
ality  and  freedom  of  God  on  the  one  hand,  and  His  intra- 
mundaiie  working  on  the  other,  we  have  the  pc-ssihility  of 
miracles.  He  loho  Relieves  in  God  as  a  free,  personal  Will,  has 
settled  for  himself  the  'possihilitij  of  miracles.  Our  opponents, 
too, ,  acknowledge  that  “  if  God  be  once  conceived  of  as  an 
extramundane  Will,  a  manifestation  of  this  "Will  in  the  world 
must  also  be  admitted ;  but  this  manifestation,  as  the  en¬ 
croachment  of  a  transcendental  principle  in  the  course  of  the 
world,  can  only  be  a  supernatural  fact,  i.e.  a  miracle.”  (Zeller.) 
The  second  fundamental  error  lies  in  a  false  conception  of  the 
world,  as  though  it  were  normal  and  perfect,  and  therefore  had 
no  farther  need  of  God’s  interference.  But  we  see  that,  on 
the  contrary,  the  development  of  the  world  is  in  many  ways 
so  abnormal,  so  disturbed,  that  just  on  account  of  this  abnor¬ 
mity,  caused  by  the  breaking  in  of  sin,  a  healing  and  restoring 
interference  on  the  part  of  God  evidently  becomes  necessary. 
This  shows  us  the  root  of  the  third  fundamental  error,  viz. 
the  opinion  that  the  supernatural  interference  of  God  must 
derange  and  break  up  the  established  order  of  nature.  We 
iiold  the  reverse,  that  it  is  the  means  of  healing  and  restoring 
the  order  which  has  been  destroyed  through  sin  and  death. 

This  is  the  position  which  we  take  up  as  against  all  the 
adversaries  of  miracles,  and  which  w^e  now  proceed  to  justify 
in  detail 

This  we  do  by  means  of  a  closer  examination  into  the 
possibility  of  the  miraculous,  and  an  enumeration  of  the  positive 
arguments  in  favour  of  it. 

Let  me  liere  begin,  as  I  have  throughout  sought  to  do,  with 
the  recognition  of  that  which  is  just  in  the  objections  of  our 
opponents.  The  old  supranaturalistic  theology  was  decidedly 
defective  in  its  conception  and  treatment  of  miracles,  and  is 
now  severely  punished  by  their  universal  negation.  It  con¬ 
sidered  miracles  singly,  instead  of  as  forming  coherent  parts 
of  a  whole.  Its  followers  valued  every  miracle  per  se,  as  a 
means  of  proving  Christianity  and  the  divine  mission  of  the 
wonder-worker,  whilst  it  really  proved  nothing ;  because  its 
own  veracity  rested  on  that  which  it  was  supposed  to  prove, 
namely,  the  divinity  of  Christ,  or  the  divine  mission  and 


LECT.  V.]  THE  NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.  301 

miglity  gifts  of  other  wonder-worhers,  or  on  the  divine  truth¬ 
fulness  of  the  Scriptures.  Thus  the  fact  was  overlooked,  that 
single  miracles  were  only  accompaniments  of  the  divine 
message ;  that  they  were  intended  to  work  as  a  whole  in  the 
entire  organism  of  Eevelation,  in  which  each  part  mutually 
supports  and  is  sustained  by  the  others. 

In  addition  to  this,  that  school  of  theology  took  pleasure  in 
pointing  out  the  antagonism  of  miracles  to  the  order  of  nature, 
and  in  the  most  trenchant  manner  maintained  the  interference 
of  God’s  mighty  will  in  the  world,  according  to  Ilis  own 
pleasure,  in  defiance  of  the  laws  of  nature,  and  without  refer¬ 
ence  either  to  the  unchangeable  and  holy  ends  which  exclude 
all  arbitrariness,  or  to  the  internal  conformity  to  law  which 
appears  in  the  miraculous.  Such  a  procedure  could  not  fail 
to  provoke  contradiction,  and  lend  force  to  an  emphatic  enun¬ 
ciation  of  the  claims  of  nature’s  law.  It  is  legitimate  that  in 
opposition  to  such  a  one-sided  view,  the  modern  consciousness 
of  our  age  should  again  insist  above  all  things  on  the  internal 
agreement  of  all  the  works  and  ways  of  God, — on  the  harmony 
of  the  moral  and  natural  laws, — and  should  interdict  all  inner 
contradiction  in  the  preservation  and  government  of  the  world. 
In  this  we  are  agreed.  We  admit,  what  we  have  already 
previously  recognised  as  a  truth  of  Deism,  that  the  created 
world,  although  upheld  by  God’s  mighty  will,  yet  has  a 
separate  existence  and  a  measure  of  independence.  We  find 
a  hint  of  this  in  the  repose  of  God  after  the  creation,  which 
indicates  that  from  that  time  forward  an  independent  existence 
of  the  world  was  possible.  We  do  not,  therefore,  maintain 
that  the  law  of  nature  is  only  the  will  of  God,  free  to  chancre 
at  any  time ;  but  we  acknowledge  that  He  has  established 
fixed  laws  and  rules  in  the  creation,  v-^hich  He  employs  in 
His  ordinary  administration  of  the  world,  and  which  are 
sufficient  for  that  purpose.  We  even  acknowledge  that  God 
employs  these  laws  to  such  an  extent,  that  to  the  perception 
of  many  He  is  entirel}^  concealed  behind  events  which  seem 
merely  natural,  so  that  such  men  cease  to  perceive  Him  and 
His  working  in  the  special  dispensations  of  providence. 

But  we  do  admit  the  comyAde,  independence  of  these  laws 
as  sovereign  powers  existing  separately,  and  as  absolutely  in¬ 
capable  of  modification,  which  would  form  an  absolute  barrier 


302 


THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MlEiCLES. 


[lect.  V, 


for  God  if  He  willed  to  do  anything  extraordinary,  and  there¬ 
fore  we  do  not  relinquish  the  possibility  of  miracles.  Hor  do 
we  admit  that  tlie  laws  of  nature  are  deranged  by  miracles. 
On  the  contrary,  we  maintain  with  the  modern  biblical  theo¬ 
logians,  who  are  now  defending  the  miraculous  with  increasing 
confidence,  the  united  harmonious  working  of  God  in  nature. 
At  the  same  time,  we  undertake  the  task  of  showing,  in  the 
midst  of  the  apparent  contradiction  between  miracles  and  the 
order  of  nature,  the  deeper  harmony,  in  the  breaking  through 
of  the  usual  course,  the  higher  order  of  the  ways  of  God,  and 
the  conformity  to  law  which  manifests  itself  therein,  exclud¬ 
ing  all  that  is  abnormal  and  arbitrary.  And  therefore  we  do 
not  consider  miracles  as  detached  apologetic  proofs,  but  “  we 
place  them  all  in  the  great  historical  organism  of  redemption, 
of  which  Christ  is  the  living  heart.”  We  consider  them  only 
as  effective  vehicles  of  one  and  the  same  redemption,  as  radia¬ 
tions  from  one  and  the  same  central  miracle,  Christ ;  i.e.  we  no 
longer  believe  in  Christ  for  the  sake  of  miracles,  but  in  miracles 
for  the  sake  of  Christ.  Still,  the  inverted  order  has  never  yet 
lost,  and  never  will  lose,  its  significance  for  certain  times  and 
circumstances  (John  ix.  16,  32,  and  especially  xiv.  11). 

From  a  theistic  conception  of  God,  i.e.  from  the  knowledge 
that  He  is  a  personal,  free  Being,  and  that  He  is  omnipotent 
and  continually  active  in  the  world,  the  objective  loossibility 
of  the  miraculous  necessarily  follows.  “  The  question  w'hether 
a  miracle  is  possible,  amounts  to  the  query,  whether  there  is  a 
living  God  who  has  created  the  world,”  ^  and  who  preserves 
it.  He  who  believes  in  a  living  God  must  logically  believe 
in  miracles  ;  for  God  is  the  miracle  of  all  miracles.  As 
soon  as  we  understand  the  declaration,  “  My  Father  worketh 
hitherto,”  and  recognise  that  the  world  depends  for  its  very 
existence  upon  the  mighty  will  of  God ;  that  the  living  God, 
who  “  rolls  up  the  heavens”  and  “  renews  the  earth,”  rules  in  the 
whole  world  ;  when  we  remember  tliat  He  has  not  withdrawn 
from  His  work,  but  continually  directs  it ;  that  He  thus  has 
krvt  open  an  entrance  for  Himself  to  every  foint  of  natures 
harmony ;  then  we  have  in  this  iniramundane  ivorhing  oj  God 
a  basis  for  the  mssibility  of  the  miracidous.  The  objection  that 
miracles  are  beyond  i\\Q  power  of  God,  at  once  falls  to  the  ground. 

’  Aubeiien. 


LECT.  V.]  THE  EATUEE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIR  VOLES.  SOS 

If  God  could  perform  miracle  upon  miracle  at  the  creation  of 
the  world,  why  not  afterwards  ?  There  can  he  nothing  more 
illogical  than  to  admit,  as  nationalism  does,  the  miracle  of 
creation,  and  at  the  same  time  to  deny  the  possibility  of  other 
miracles.  What  God  has  once  done  He  must  always  be  able 
to  do,  otherwise  He  would  cease  to  be  God. 

But  here  we  are  met  by  the  objection  that  miracles  are  an 
outrage  upon  the  degree  of  independent  life  due  to  the  world— 
a  violation  of  the  laics  of  nature.  They  are  said  to  be  a  breach 
of  that  fixed  order,  the  irreversible  authority  of  which  is  the 
only  guarantee  for  the  continual  existence  of  the  world, — that 
order  which  coheres  so  closely,  that  the  slightest  derangement 
must  occasion  confusion  in  the  whole  ;  in  short,  a  miracle,  as 
Strauss  has  lately  expressed  it,  is  a  “  rent  in  the  vjorldf  or, 
more  exactly,  a  “rent  in  nature’s  harmony.”  Let  us  dwell 
somewhat  on  this  chief  objection. 

First  of  all,  w^e  cannot  admit  that  in  the  whole  creation 

there  exists,  and  always  has  existed,  an  uninterrupted  chain 

of  communication,  or  a  fixed  and  universally  binding  connec- 

lion  of  cause  and  effect.  Where  is  the  naturalist  who  could 

demonstrate  its  existence  ?  This  chain,  the  indestructibility 

of  which  is  the  ever-recurring  premise  in  the  negation  of 

miracles,  in  reality  often  enough  hreahs  off  in  Nature's  own 

domain.  The  “  rents  ”  exist  in  the  verv  nature  of  the  crea- 

%/ 

tion.  If  we  do  not  believe  in  the  eternity  of  matter,  but 
in  the  creation  of  the  world  by  God,  i.e.  in  its  bein^  called 
forth  from  non-existence  into  existence,  the  connectiog  chain 
is  broken  off  at  the  very  beginning.  From  the  laws  of  the 
created  world,  the  genesis  of  creation  itself  can  never  be 
deduced.  The  existence  of  the  world,  then,  is  a  miracle,  as 
well  as  the  existence  of  God  Himself.  But  putting  this 
entirely  aside,  we  meet  with  phenomena  in  the  genetic  pro¬ 
cess  of  nature  itself  at  which  that  chain  breaks  off,  with 
events  which  natural  science  never  can  explain  from  the  laws 
and  forces  known  to  us.  The  original  entrance  of  higher 
forms  of  life  into  the  sphere  liitherto  tilled  up  by  lower  ones, 
is  one  of  the  most  striking  phenomena  of  this  kind.  Now 
did  the  first  living  organism  originate  ?  Modern  natural 
science  has  unquestionably  demonstrated  that  life  did  not 
always  exist  on  the  earth.  Long  ago,  Cuvier  confidently 


304 


THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES. 


[lect.  V. 


maintained  this  to  be  the  case,  and  that  we  could  easily 
indicate  the  point  of  time  when  life  began ;  ^  and  it  is  con- 
fiiined  by  Liebig,  who  says  :  “  Some  philosophers  have  affirmed 
tliat  life  has  existed  from  eternity.  Natural  science,  however, 
has  proved  that  at  a  certain  period  the  earth’s  temperature 
was  such  that  no  organic  life  could  exist,  and  that,  therefore, 
it  must  have  had  a  beginning.”  ^  In  addition  to  this,  natural 
science  has  of  late  years  increasingly  confirmed  the  position, 
that  it  is  impossible  to  demonstrate  the  natural  evolution  of 
organic  life  from  inorcjanic  matter,  even  in  the  smallest 
degree.  What  Muller  once  said  still  remains  true,  “  Only  a 
miraculous  interruption  of  the  natural  laws  can  form  the 
living  organism  out  of  lifeless  matter.”  ®  Here,  at  all  events; 
we  have  a  beginning,  which  we  can  only  explain  through  a 
creative  act,  i.e.  through  a  miracle.  And  how  did  S[)irit 
first  enter  the  world  ?  how  man,  witli  the  law  of  conscience 
which  transcends  all  the  laws  of  nature  ?  With  him,  too,  the 
chain  breaks  off.  Lie  appears  as  a  new  beginning,  as  a  third 
miracle,  which  retains  its  miraculous  character  even  to  this 
day.  For  what  is  every  new-born  man,  with  his  peculiar 
individuality,  his  special  talents  and  powers,  but  a  never 
fully  explicable  miracle  ?  ^  There  is  not  merely  poetical 
imagery,  but  real  truth,  in  the  words  of  the  poet  Eiickert : 

^  Dlscoiirs  sur  les  revolutions  du  globe,  p.  24. 

®  Augshurger  Allgemeine  Zeitimg,  1856,  Nr.  24. 

^  It  is  instructive  to  witness  tlie  desperate  efforts  of  Strauss  in  his  last 
work,  The  Old  and  the  New  Faith,  1873,  p.  169  et  seq.,  to  show  that  modem 
natural  scientists  have  discovered  the  missing  link  bctAveen  the  organic  and 
unorganic  kingdom.  In  the  face  of  tlie  express  opinion  of  a  scientific  man  like 
Virchow,  who  certainly  does  not  favour  positive  Christianity,  hut  declares 
“that  all  known  facts  go  to  disprove  the  truth  of  spontaneous  generation 
during  the  present  eraj”  he  can  only  quote  the  hypotheses  built  hy  Huxley  on 
his  discovery  of  the  “  Bathybius,”  and  by  Hajckel  on  the  existence  of  what  he 
styles  “  Moneren.” 

*  It  is  therefore  only  logical  for  dcniers  of  the  miraculous,  like  Strauss,  to 
banish  it  from  nature,  in  order  thoroughly  to  get  rid  of  it ;  and  for  this  reason, 
above  all,  to  seek  a  natui’al  explanation  for  the  origin  of  man.  Thus  Strauss 
(in  his  Christl.  Glaubenslehre,  i.  p.  206  ff. )  once  gave  vent  to  the  des2ierate  con¬ 
jecture,  that  if  it  Avere  possible  for  the  ta2)e-Avorm  to  gi’OAV  from  heterogeneous 
matter  to  a  considerable  length  in  the  human  intestines,  without  having  been 
sexually  generated,  he  did  not  see  Avhy  man  should  not  at  some  time  or  other, 
when  the  earth  was  far  richer  in  generative  forces  than  noAV,  have  been  formed 
out  of  some  sort  of  terrestrial  matter,  hoAvever  foreign  to  his  present  being.  At 
(he  present  day,  after  the  impossibility  of  a  generalio  cequlvoca  has  been  demon- 


LECT.  V.]  THE  NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 


SOS 


Man  is  a  miracle  begotten  and  conceived, 

A  miracle,  he  lives,  is  born  and  nursed, 

A  miracle,  he  grows,  and  sees,  and  feels, 

A  miracle,  he  thinks,  and  what  he  thinks, 

A  miracle,  he  stands,  miracles  environing. 

Miracles  precede  and  follow  all  his  steps  ; 

To  them  is  he  so  gradually,  unconsciously 
Inured,  that  they  appear  to  him  quite  natural. 

And  unaccustom’d  only  seems  miraculous  to  him, 

Who  Nature’s  wonders  unastonish’d  sees.” 

We  tliiis  see  that  there  are  divers  “  rents,”  ^  not,  it  is  true, 
ill  the  M'orld,  but  in  the  connection  of  Nature,  supposed  to  be 
perfect — rents  which  can  only  be  filled  up  by  the  miraculous 
power  of  God.  Not  Nature  herself,  but  the  false  conception 
of  Nature  from  which  the  denial  of  the  miraculous  proceeds, 
is  violated  by  these  facts. 

And  do  not  a  multitude  of  analogies  go  to  show  that  God 
can  interfere  supernaturally  at  any  time  in  all  natural  exist- 

strated,  Strauss  would  scarcely  venture  to  make  such  assertions.  Many  years 
ago,  Alexander  v.  Humboldt  remarked  on  these  tendencies  of  his  ;  “  What  I  do 
not  like  in  Strauss,  is  the  scientific  frivolity  with  which  he  finds  no  difficulty  in 
accepting  the  generation  of  organic  matter  from  unorganic  ;  or  even  the  forma¬ 
tion  of  man  from  some  primeval  Chaldaean  slime  ”  {Letters  to  Varnhagen,  4th 
ed.  p.  117).  'Wl?  see  from  this,  that  whoever  believes  in  the  superiority  of  man’s 
nature,  must  believe  in  miracles  also. 

Renan,  too  (in  his  work  on  the  Apostles),  is  obliged,  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the 
miraculous,  to  abandon  the  supernatural  origin  of  man.  “  Nothing  can  be  more 
offensive,”  he  says,  “nothing  more  senseless,  than  the  formation  of  mankind,  if 
we  regard  it  as  a  sudden,  momentary  act.  It  enters  the  region  of  universal 
analogies,  if  we  regard  it  as  the  result  of  a  slow  progress  going  on  through 
incalculable  periods.”  So  the  divine  origin  of  man  is  “oftensive,”  but  his 
derivation  from  the  primal  egg  or  cell  of  some  first  organism, — through  the 
medium,  probably,  of  the  monkey  tribe, — or,  to  use  Renan’s  euphemism,  from 
“universal  analogies,”  is  not  oidy  inoffensive,  but  the  only  reasonable  view'! 
What  an  utter  perversion  of  ideas  !  I 

^  And  not  only  does  the  entrance  of  higher  forms  of  life  interrupt  the  chain  of 
natural  causes  :  for  rvithin  the  different  grades  of  existence  tliemselves,  we  see 
the  universal  laws  broken  by  exceptions  in  certain  points.  The  only  exception  to 
the  law,  that  heat  expands  and  cold  contracts,  is  water,  which  is  most  dense  and 
heavy  at  a  temperature  of  4°  (Cent.),  but  expands  and  becomes  Ijgliter  below 
this  mark.  For  this  reason,  the  heavy  water  of  the  temperature  above  men¬ 
tioned  remains  belorv,  otherwise  a  few  cold  days  rvould  turn  all  our  waters  into 
ice,  and  our  countries  would  have  the  climate  of  the  frigid  zones.  “  Thus  we 
see  in  the  case  of  water  how  God  breaks  through  an  otherwise  universal  law  of 
nature,  in  order  to  make  a  greater  part  of  the  earth’s  surface  habitable.”  This 
speaks  at  the  same  time  against  the  unconscious  mundane  soul  of  the  pantheist ; 
for  the  laws  of  such  a  being  would  allow  of  no  exceptions  in  favour  of  a  higlier 
aim. 


f 


U 


306 


THE  MODEEX  NEGATION  OF  MIEACLES. 


[lect,  V. 


ence  ?  Each  higher  form  of  life  has  its  peculiar  laws,  which 
transcend  those  of  the  loiver  forms,  and  cannot  he  explained  hy 
them.  Therefore  each  in  a  certain  sense  can  perform  miracles 
in  the  inferior  grades  of  existence,  that  is  to  say,  it  can  inter¬ 
fere  as  a  higher  will,  and  bring  forth  results  which  could  not 
proceed  from  the  laws  and  forces  of  the  lower  orders,  and  yet 
this  takes  place  without  disturbing  them  in  their  continued 
existence.  How  wonderfully,  e.g.,  an  animal  can  interfere  in 
the  vegetable  kingdom,  by  his  sudden  ravages !  Think  how 
the  human  will  can  interfere  in  the  lower  orders  of  nature. 
The  sum  of  human  activity  is  almost  solely  expended  in 
seeking  to  realize  that  which  Nature  of  herself  cannot  produce. 
Why,  then,  should  it  not  be  possible  for  God  to  interfere  with 
His  higher  Will  in  earthly  nature  and  the  human  world  ?  If 
He  has  granted  to  human  freedom  an  influence  on  the  world. 
He  must  have  reserved  the  same  right  for  Himself.  When 
man  works  upon  nature  and  transforms  it,  or  when  the  mind 
controls  and  directs  the  organs  of  the  body,  the  power  of  the 
will  is  manifest.  The  spiritual  works  upon  the  sensuous,  and 
produces  that  which  Nature  alone  could  not  produce  without 
in  some  way  disturbing  the  simultaneous  woi'king  of  hei 
forces  and  laws.  For  the  mind  rules  the  body,  and  through 
the  power  of  the  will  moves  the  limbs  innumerable  times,  in 
opposition  to  the  law  of  gravitation.  This  .very  law  of 
gravitation — the  corner-stone  upon  which  the  naturalistic 
view  of  the  world  is  based — is  in  a  special  sense  the  law  of 
death,  because  it  reigns  entirely  and  absolutely  only  where 
there  is  death ;  and  it  is  interrupted  continually  by  every 
motion  of  life,  from  the  germ  bursting  its  shell  to  the  flying 
bird  or  the  working  man.  And  yet  its  validity  is  always 
unimpaired.  ^  Why,  then,  should  not  divine  powder  also  act 
immediately  upon  certain  points  in  the  domain  of  creation, 
and  he  able  to  produce  in  it  something  which  the  resources 
of  Nature  could  never  produce,  and  that  without  disturbing 
the  continuously  operating  forces  and  laws  of  the  world,  or 
permanently  “  rending  ”  them  asunder  ? 

jMoreover,  Ave  often  see  things  in  nature,  merely  by  contact 
with  other  natural  forces,  enter  into  processes  and  conditions 
which  Ave  could  not  at  all  have  interred  from  the  powers  and  ^ 
laAvs  hitherto  obserA^ed  in  them ;  as  Avhen,  e.g.,  iron,  which 


LECT.  V.]  THE  XATUEE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 


307 


before  lay  on  the  ground  through  the  force  of  gravitation,  is 
lifted  by  the  magnet.  Why  should  not  earthly  creatures  also, 
by  contact  with  divine  power,  be  enabled  to  pass  into  con¬ 
ditions  or  develope  forces  which  we  were  unable  to  infer  from 
their  former  natui’e  per  se  ? 

From  this  we  make  two  deductions :  First,  that  the  inter¬ 
ference  of  the  higher  forces  is  not  excluded  by  the  operation 
of  the  lower,  and,  therefore,  that  the  interference  of  God  is 
not  excluded  by  the  operation  of  the  laws  of  nature.  The  mcm 
luho  endeavours  to  make  the  laws  of  nature  a  ground  of  proof 
against  miracles,  simply  tegs  the  question,  for  he  always  pre- 
sup)poscs  lohat  he  desires  to  prove.  If  he  say  that  the  existence 
of  these  laws  renders  a  higher  influence  impossible,  he  clearly 
presupposes  that  these  laws  alone  are  valid  always  and  every¬ 
where,  and  that  is  precisely  what  must  first  be  proved. 
Second,  we  see  that  by  the  interference  of  the  higher  orders 
with  the  lower,  the  laws  of  the  latter  are  in  no  way  dis¬ 
turbed  or  abolished,  but  still  continue  in  force.  The  same 
also  is  true  of  the  interference  of  God  in  the  course  of  tlie 
world.  The  laws  of  nature  are  in  no  unty  suspended  thereby, 
but  continue  to  retain  their  validity.  And  why  ?  Because 
the  forces  of  nature,  strictly  speaking,  do  not  participate  at 
all  in  the  actual  miracles,  and  because  the  products  of  the 
miracle,  with  all  their  consequences,  immediately  take  their 
place  in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature. 

I  say  the  forces  of  nature  do  not  participate  at  all  in  the 
act  itself.  Not  they,  but  a  higher  divine  power  performs  the 
miracle.  But  we  must  here  discriminate  between  miracles  in 
the  absolute  sense  of  the  loord,  which  exclude  all  mediation  of 
the  creature,  and  those  which  are  accomplished  through  an 
enliancement  of  the  forces  of  nature,  and  are  thus  connected 
with  the  legitimate  activity  of  the  latter.  To  the  first  belong, 
e.g.,  the  conception  of  Christ,  and  the  miracles  of  the  loaves 
and  fishes.  Here  we  have  a  process  similar  to  the  creation 
of  the  world.  God  by  His  own  immediate  activity  places 
something  in  the  course  of  nature  which  did  not  exist  there 
belbre.  What  He  once  did  for  the  universe.  He  is  surely 
■  able  to  do  for  an  individual  part  of  it.  But  the  forces  of 
nature  are  not  partakers  in  this  immediate  act  of  God.  The 
miraculous  act  in  these  in^tances  lies  entirely  beyond  the 


303  THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES.  [lECT.  V. 

laws  of  nature.  They  merely  receive  its  product,  which 
directly  subordinates  itself  to  them.  The  miraculous  act  itself 
can  never  be  perceived  by  the  senses,  only  its  effect.  How 
can  any  one  in  such  a  case  speak  of  a  disturbance  or  a  breach 
in  the  laws  of  nature  ?  And  how  can  men  say  that  the 
object  thus  introduced  into  the  course  of  nature  must 
necessarily  produce  endless  changes  in  the  world  ?  As  soon 
as  it  enters  the  world,  it  becomes  subject  to  the  laws  of  nature, 
and  obeys  them  in  its  further  existence.  Apart  from  its 
origin,  it  ceases  with  its  entrance  into  the  world  to  be  a 
miracle,  and  becomes  part  of  the  natural  and  the  actual. 

The  same  thing  occurs  here  as  in  grafting  a  noble  scion 
upon  a  wild  stock.  It  is  something  foreign  to  the  nature  of  the 
latter,  but  is  dependent  for  its  future  existence  upon  all  the 
conditions  of  that  nature.  So  Christ  is  the  noble  scion  grafted 
upon  the  human  stock,  not  by  the  will  of  man,  but  through  a 
creative  act  of  God  (John  i.  13).  The  order  of  creation  in 
nature  and  history,  which  is  indeed  the  divine  order,  is  >60  far 
from  being  interrupted,  that  it  is  throughout  respected  as  sacred. 
Thus  the  law  of  historical  development  is  respected.  The 
Destroyer  of  the  Serpent  does  not  appear  before  the  specifically 
religious  as  well  as  the  general  human  pre-conditions  are  ful¬ 
filled,  and  thus  the  human  race  is  ready  to  receive  Him. 
“  When  the  fidness  of  the  time  was  come,  God  sent  forth  His 
Son,”  Gal.  iv.  4.  The  order  of  nature,  too,  is  respected.  We 
do  not  see  a  fantastic  descent  from  heaven  of  one  apparently 
thirty  years  of  age,  whose  human  form  is  a  mere  phantom  ; 
but  from  the  moment  when  the  seed  of  the  woman  is  roused 
to  conception  by  a  creative  act  of  God,  He  is  subject  to 
all  the  natural  conditions  of  birth  and  individual  life  in 
its  gradual  development.  And,  finally,  the  moral  law  as 
well  as  the  national  law  of  Judaism  is  respected.  Jesus  is 
“  made  under  the  law,”  fulfils  all  righteousness,  is  subject  to 
His  parents.  He  proves  His  morality  in  the  course  of  His 
life  under  constant  temptation  and  trial :  in  obedience  to  His 
Father  even  unto  death.  I  ask,  “  Can  the  glory  of  God 
.  accommodate  itself  more  humbly  to  human  nature  and  history 
than  it  has  done  in  the  life  and  death  of  Christ  1”^ 

*  Cf.  Die  Tuhltiger  hlstorlsche  Schule  in  the  Zeltschrlft  fur  Protesianilsrmi* 
und  Kirche,  Apr.  1801,  p.  223  et  scq.,  and  Bej'sclilag,  ^lli  sii2>7-a. 


LECT.  V.]  THE  NATURE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES, 


309 


What  reasonable  man  can  speak  of  a  rent  in  the  laws  of 
nature,  in  a  sphere  where  she  originally  had  neither  anything 
to  do  nor-  to  suffer?  The  same  is  true  of  other  absolute 
miracles  or  new  creations.  “  The  'already  existing  harmony 
of  nature  is  as  little  annihilated  by  the  appearance  of  an  ab¬ 
solute  creative  act  of  God  in  the  wmrld,  as  is  humanity  itself 
by  the  entrance  of  a  new  personality.”^ 

But  in  tliose  miracles  in  which  God  produces  supernatural 
effects  through  an  intensification  of  the  legitimate  activity  of 
nature  {e.g.  in  the  deluge  and  several  of  the  Mosaic  miracles, 
w’hich  were  connected  with  certain  natural  phenomena  of  those 
regions),  the  natural  order  is  preserved.  The  miracle  is  here 
connected  with  the  existing  life  of  nature,  the  slow  process  of 
which  is  but  temporarily  suspended  while  the  divine  power 
substitutes  a  concentrated  and  potential  plastic  energy.  In 
these  cases,  as  we  have  already  hinted,  God  does  the  same  as 
man,  though  in  an  infinitely  higher  manner  and  sphere.  By  con¬ 
trolling  and  intensifying  the  forces  of  nature  in  art  and  industry, 
we  produce  effects  which  the  course  of  nature  left  to  itself 
would  never  bring  about.  But  what  man  can  do,  God  can  also 
do,  and  tliat  without  limitation.  He  who  has  created  nature 
and  determined  its  course,  to  whom  it  is  perfectly  clear  and 
transparent  in  all  its  parts,  must  surely  best  understand  how 
to  play  on  that  gigantic  instrument  upon  which  we,  in  spite 
of  all  our  progress  in  the  natural  sciences,  are  still  but  clumsy 
performers.  And  even  though  whole  countries  and  nations 
should  be  dashed  to  the  ground  by  its  most  powerful  chords, 
not  one  of  the  many  strings  would  break  so  as  to  disorder  the 
framework  of  His  laws.  Is  He  not  the  skilful  Master  to 
whom  all  His  works  are  known  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world  ?  He  does  not  intermeddle  with  them  like  the  novice 
who  stops  the  harmonious  working  of  a  watch;  but  with  holy 
wisdom  for  the  salvation  of  the  world,  and  at  the  right  hour. 
He  exerts  His  supernatural  power.  'To  this  day  the  world 
quietly  moves  on  in  its  course,  and  the  laws  of  nature  exist  and 
work  in  full  force ;  therefore  they  have  not  been  rent  asunder, 
and  still  less  annulled,  by  previous  miracles.  And,  therefore, 
the  power  which  performed  them  cannot  be  one  which  dis- 
tuiled  order,  but  its  interference  must  have’  maintained  it. 

*  Schenkel,  Christl.  Dogmat.  p.  258. 


:310 


THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES.  [lECT.  V, 


Those  who  find  it  difficult  to  believe  in  anything  which 
surpasses  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  ought  to  determine  for 
us  precisely  how  much  is  included  in  the  natural,  and  show 
us  the  hounclary  heyond  which  natural  forces  cannot  he  intensified 
hy  the  siijjcr natural.  Or,  if  they  maintain  that  such  an  intensi¬ 
fication  can  never  take  place  at  all,  let  them  show  us  why  the 
natural,  which  originally  proceeds  from  the  supernatural,  should 
not  always  continue,  to  be  open  to  its  influence.  If  the  laws 
of  nature  originally  proceed  from  God,  is  He  to  be  the  only 
one  who  is  not  Master  in  His  own  house  ?  Are  these  laws 
to  be,  as  it  were,  prison  walls,  within  which  God  has  confined 
Himself  ?  “  Shall  we — to  adopt  the  language  of  a  natural 

philosopher- — dare  to  allow  no  freedom  to  the  primitive  source 
of  all  freedom,  and  make  a  strait-waistcoat  for  Him  of  His 
own  laws,  which  we,  moreover,  but  impeifectly  understand  ?  ” 
The  course  of  God  in  the  government  of  the  world  and  of 
man  is,  and  always  has  been,  one  of  freedom ;  His  is  the  free 
election  of  grace.  He  will  not,  and  cannot,  allow  His  hands  to 
be  bound  by  anything.  Why  should  He  not  have  reserved  to 
Himself  the  power  to  interfere  in  special  cases  and  in  special 
extraordinary  ways  ?  just  as  in  every  household,  in  spite  of 
the  strictest  rules  which  continue  both  before  and  after,  special 
regulations  are  required  for  special  cases. 

Whence  arises  the  proverb,  “  There  is  no  rule  without  an 
exception  ”  ?  Does  it  not  come  from  a  true  feeling  that  the 
rules  which  we  have  discovered  or  made  are  not  immutably 
and  absolutely  valid,  but  that  they  admit  of  modifications  ? 
Nothing  can  ever  limit  the  Infinite  and  Boundless.  If  He  as 
the  Absolute  has  His  limitations  only  in  Himself,  and  not  in 
anything  outside  of  Him,  then  no  order  of  natm-e  can  stop 
Him,  be  it  never  so  fixed  in  its  working.  As  Matthias 
Claudius  strikingly  says  to  the  learned  men  who  are  always 
appealing  to  the  “  nexus  rerum,”  i.e.  the  strict  connection  of 
all  things,  “  The  gates  of  Gaza  with  their  two  posts  had  a 
strong  connection  with  the  stone  archwav  and  the  bolts.  Yet 
Samson  came,  and,  taking  them  out  of  this  beautiful  ‘  nexus,’ 
carried  them  to  the  top  of  the  hill  before  Hebron, — a  violent 
proceeding  which  certidiily  no  professor  of  natural  history  in 
Gaza  would  have  considered  possible.”  And  must  not  such 
an  absolutely  free  and  sometimes  extraordinary  divine  inter- 


LECT.  V.]  THE  NATUEE  AND  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES.  oil 

fevence  be  all  the  more  necessary  in  a  world  where  God  not 
only  has  to  do  with  inanimate  things  and  mechanical  laws, 
hut  with  free  beings  who  can  thwart  His  moral  order  every 
moment  ?  Could  we  under  such  circumstances  imagine  a 
government'  of  the  world,  in  which  God  had  not  the  freedom 
to  interfere  in  details,  in  order  to  realize  His  holy  will  in  the 
history  of  the  world,  amid  the  action  and  reaction  of  the 
struggle  with  His  free  creatures?^  From  all  this  we  see  clearly 
that  no  valid  objection  against  miracles  can  result  either  from 
the  contemplation  of  God  or  from  that  of  the  laws  of  nature ; 
and  the  talk  about  a  “  rent  in  the  world  ”  is  shown  to  emanate 
from  a  great  rent  in  the  logic  of  those  who  invent  such 
empty  catchwords,  which  are  unfortunately  adopted  by  many 
wnthout  judgment  or  examination. 

But  here  a  new  objection  meets  us.  If  it  .cannot  be  denied 
that  miracles  are  consistent  with  the  power  of  God,  yet  at 
least  they  seem  to  be  incompatible  with  His  omniscience, 
must  have  foreseen  and  suitably  arranged  everything,  and  which, 
therefore,  renders  an  extraordinary  interference  in  the  course 
of  the  world  superfluous.  Such  aftev-lulp,  in  special  cases,  can 
only  be  necessary  where  the  original  regulations  are  imperfect, 
but  not  in  God’s  perfect  universe.  Benan,  amongst  others, 
appeals  to  this  trivial  argument.  “  jMiracles,”  says  he,  “  are 
special  interpositions  like  those  of  a  watchmaker,  who,  though 
he  has  made  a  very  fine  watch,  yet  is  compelled  to  regulate  it 
from  time  to  time  in  order  to  compensate  lor  the  insufficiency 
of  the  mechanism.”  We  have  already  seen  how  ill  this  con¬ 
ception  of  a  compensating  assistance  corresponds  to  God’s 
special  government  in  the  world.  Hot  GoeXs  order,  but  loe 
men,  and  especially  fcdlen  men,  require  divine .  aid  for  our 
entire  condition,  and  above  all  for  our  jDerception  of  the  being 
and  power  of  God,  which  has  been  darkened  through  sin  ! 
Hence  this  objection  rests  entirely  upon  the  indiscrimination 
of  those  men  who  overlook  the  mored  aim  of  miracles.  Benan 
does  so.  He  entirely  waives  the  main  question,  whether 
it  is  not  possible  that  a  disturbance  has  really  entered  the 
mechanism  of  our  existence.  He  has  no  idea  of  the  moral 

’  Compare  with  this  p.  196  et  seq.,  where  the  fact  of  man’s  freedom  was  shown 
to  be  an  argument  against  the  deistic  conception  of  the  divine  government  of 
the  world. 


3 1 2  THE  MODEIIX  NEGATION  OF  MIEACLES.  [LECT,  V. 

aspect  of  our  cpiestion,  and  cannot  have,  because  the  ethical 
element  is  entirely  wanting  in  his  view  of  the  world. 

*/  o 

If  we  fix  our  attention  upon  this  side  of  the  question,  we 
shall  find  that  the  miraculous  is  justified  from  another  point 
of  view.  We  now  recognise  in  the  condition  of  the  world  as 
vitiated  by  sin,  not  only  the  possibility,  hut  also  the  necessity 
of  miracles,  and  can  proceed  to  enter  upon  the  line  of  positive 
counter-proofs  in  opposition  to  their  negation. 


II. - NECESSITY  AND  HISTORICAL  MANIFESTATIONS  OF  THE 

MIRACULOUS. 

It  has  rightly  been  observed,  that  miracles  are  necessary  if 
it  were  only  for  the  development  of  history.  For  whilst  the 
process  of  natural  life  is  a  mere  repetition,^  the  historical 
process  is  a  continuous  onward  march,  in  which  the  new  must 
ever  have  a  place.  The  life  of  the  spirit  in  history  requires 
the  new,  and  lives  by  it.  “  History  is  nourished  by  the  new, 
i.e.  by  the  miraculous;  it  would  become  stagnant  without  it.”^ 
Here,  however,  the  reference  is  to  miracles  in  the  wider  sense. 

But  as  the  miraculous  in  general  is  necessary  to  history,  so 
miracles  properly  so  called  are  necessary,  in  consequence  of 
the  moral  condition  of  the  world  after  the  entrance  of  sin. 
We,  too,  are  well  aware  of  a  rent  in  the  world  and  a  dis¬ 
turbance  of  its  original  laws,  not  caused,  however,  by  God, 
but  by  man  ;  not  provoked  by  miracles,  but  rather  to  be 
remedied  by  tliem.  Our  opponents  say  that  the  w'orld  would 
"0  to  ruin  if  God  through  His  interference  were  to  violate  the 
order  of  nature.  To  this  we  reply,  that,  on  the  contrary,  since 
sin  has  entered  the  world,  it  would  immediately  go  to  ruin  if 
left  to  itself,  and  therefore  it  only  exists  to  this  day  because 
God  in  every  age  has  graciously  interfered  in  its  self-infiicted 
disorder.’  We  shall  easily  be  convinced  of  this  if  w'e  fix  our 
attention  upon  the  interned  aim  of  miracles,  and  compare  it 
with  the  end  and  aim  of  the  world.  And  here  the  objection  of 
those  who  talk  of  a  “  rent  in  the  world  ”  appears  in  all  its  folly. 

‘  As  Lessing  remarked,  that  he  had  already  seen  the  earth  put  on  its  green 
dress  thirty- eight  times,  and  now  for  once  he  should  like  to  see  it  in  a  red  on^ 
•  Mehring,  Beliijionsphilosophie,  p.  199. 


LECT.  V.] 


NECESSITY  OF  THE  MIEACULOUS. 


313 


As  God  is  the  Creator  of  the  world,  so  He  is  also  the  End 
for  wliich  it  was  created.  He  Himself  is  the  aim  of  its 
development.  Therefore,  although  it  was  “  very  good,”  as 
created  by  Him,  yet  from  the  beginning  it  was  destined  for  a 
still  higher  consummation.  Above  the  visible  order  of  things 
there  existed  a  higher  supernatural  sphere  of  glorious  spirits. 
To  this  the  natural  world  was  to  become  gradually  conformed. 
But  what  happened  ?  Did  the  world  move  in  a  direct  path 
towards  this  her  destiny  by  faithfully  preserving  the  original 
divine  order  ?  Let  us  look  around.  Evil  meets  us  at  every 
step.  We  see  all  life  springing  only  from  death,  and  hastening 
thither  again.  Strife  and  murder  stalk  throughout  the  entire 
creation.  We  see  the  elements  raging  against  the  works  of 
man’s  hands,  and  rising  in  rebellion  against  their  divinely 
ordained  master,  often  to  his  destruction.  Is  that  the  original 
order  which  God  beheld,  and,  lo,  “  it  was  very  good”?  Natural 
science  may  affirm  this  as  often  as  it  pleases,  since  it  knows 
no  better.  The  Christian,  who  believes  in  an  infinitely  bene¬ 
volent  and  holy  Creator,  will  always  deny  it.  He  is  compelled 
to  recognise  that  a  far-reaching  disturbance  has  entered  into 
the  originally  divine  order — a  disturbance  from  which  all  evil 
proceeds,  in  consequence  of  which  the  curse  of  death  rests 
upon  every  creature,  and  the  world  is  checked  in  its  develop¬ 
ment  towards  its  eternal  goal,  aye,  which  threatens  the  loss  of 
that  goal, — and  this  disturbance  is  sin.  If,  then,  the  divine 
aim  in  the  creation  of  the  ivorld  teas  ever  to  he  attained,  God 
must  needs  interfere  in  order  to  oiidlify  the  disturbance  which 
had  entered,  and  to  realize  the  consummation  which  icas  intended 
by  Him ;  He  must  immediately  overcome  the  'powers  of  sin  and 
death  with  new  creative  energy,  in  order  to  deliver  that  which 
was  in  bondage  to  them,  i.e.  He  must  perform  a  miracle.  And 
this  interference  could  not  take  place  only  in  the  spiritual  and 
moral  sphere,  but  it  must  also  touch  upon  the  domain  of 
nature,  since,  as  every  one  can  trace  in  his  own  body,  corrup¬ 
tion  has  also  penetrated  the  material  world.  Hence  there  is 
a  necessity  for  miracles  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word. 

Here  we  see  the  necessity  and  the  aim  of  the  miraculous. 
The  whole  question  turns  upon  this,  whether  men  set  out  with 
the  supposition  that  the  world  in  its  present  state  is  normal  and 
perfect,  or  whether  they  admit  that  a  disturbance  has  entered  its 


314 


THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES. 


[LECT.  V. 


development  throngli  sin.  Only  in  tlie  latter  case  can  men. 
arrive  at  a  belief  in  the  miraculous,  as  in  general  they  only 
attain  to  faith  at  all  when  they  first  see  their  misery,  and 
look  not  at  their  good,  but  at  their  evil.  He  only  who 
believes  in  the  fatal  ruin  of  man  as  a  consequence  of  sin,  and 
at  the  same  time  in  a  holy  God,  vdio  is  love,  and  as  such 
cannot  forsake  His  creatures  although  they  have  forsaken 
Him,  will  also  consider  a  divine  interference  necessary  for  the 
removal  of  tlie  ruin  which  has  entered  the  world.  We  there¬ 
fore  maintain  thafi  the  first  breach  in  the  divine  order  which 
entails  infinitely  important  consequences  was  made  by  sin, — • 
sin  has  made  a  “  rent”  in  the  world  ;  but  miracles  only  enter 
in  for  the  removal  of  the  already  existing  disturbance.^  The 
abnormal  sinful  course  of  our  free  development  not  only  can 
hear  God's  saving  interference,  hut  imperatively  demands  it  as  a 
ivork  of  mercy.  Hence  we  read,  “  Who  alone  doeth  great 
wonders  (or  miracles)  :  for  His  mercy  enduretli  for  ever  ”  (Ps. 
cxxxvi.  4). 

If  men  call  the  salvation  wrought  by  Christ  a  violent 
interference  in  our  natural  development,  they  should  also 
consider  the  grafting  of  wild  trees  and  the  healing  of  the  sick 
as  contrary  to  nature.  “  Miracles  do  not  unnaturcdly  hreak 
through  nature,  hut  supernaturally  through  the  nniiaturcd.”  For 
surely  it  is  plainly  contrary  to  the  laws  of  nature,  and  of  a 
truth  most  unnatural,  that  one  should  have  eyes  and  not  see, 
ears  and  not  hear,  organs  of  speech  and  not  speak,  or  limbs 
without  the  power  to  use  them  ;  but  not  that  a  Saviour  should 
come  and  loose  his  fetters  !  Assuredly  it  is  unnatural  that 
there  should  be  so  much  misery  in  the  world,  but  not  that  a 
Saviour  should  seek  to  remove  it !  It  is  unnatural  that  one 
people  should  be  most  cruelly  enslaved  and  abused  by  another, 
but  not  that  God  should  regard  them  and  lead  them  out  of 
the  land  of  bondage  “  by  signs  and  wonders,  by  a  mighty 
hand  and  a  stretched-out  arm”  (Dent.  vii.  19)!  It  is  un¬ 
natural  that  the  \vind  and  the  waves  should  rise  against  a 
good  human  action,  but  not  that  the  Lord  should  command 
them  !  It  w'ere  indeed  unnatural  that  the  five  thousand  who 
liad  gone  after  the  Word  of  life  should  starve  in  the  wilder¬ 
ness,  but  not  that  the  bountiful  hand  of  God  should  open  and 

*  At  present  we  are  putting  the  miracle  of  the  creation  out  of  the  question. 


LECT.  V.J 


NECESSITY  OF  TEE  MIEACULOUa 


315 


make  much  out  of  little,  as  it  once  made  the  universe  out 
of  nothing  !  It  was  contrary  to  nature  that  ruthless  death 
should  sever  the  bands  of  love,  which  God  Himself  has  knit, 
between  mother  and  son,  between  brother  and  sister ;  but  not 
that  a  young  man  of  Xain,  or  a  Lazarus,  should  be  released 
from  the  fetters  of  death  through  a  mighty  word  !  And  that 
was  the  climax  of  the  unnatural,  that  the  world  should  nail 
the  only  righteous  One  to  the  cross  ;  but  not  that  the  holy 
Bearer  of  that  cross  should  conquer  undeserved  death,  should 
rise  and  victoriously  enter  into  His  glory  !  ^ 

In  every  one  of  these  cases  the  unnatural  is  removed  by 
means  of  the  miraculous,  and  the  original  laws  of  nature  are 
re-established.  Here  the  siq^ernatiiral  is  shown  to  he  tr^ihj  in 
accordance  with  nature.  That  ivhich  tahes  place  here  is  so  fan' 
from  being  a  disturoance  or  a  breach  in  real  nature,  thcd  it  is 
rather  a  healing  and  re-establishing  of  the  original  and  genuine 
order.  The  laws  of  nature,  instead  of  being  abolished,  are 
confirmed  and  set  up  again  in  their  full  force.  In  the  same 
way  the  healing  of  the  sick  is  not  a  violation  but  a  re-estab¬ 
lishment  of  the  laws  of  nature  ;  and  when  the  laws  of  the 
natural  life  of  the  soul  are  interrupted  by  the  new  birth,  one 
does  not  feel  in  any  wise  a  violation  of  the  mind  and  sj)irit, 
but  ratlier  a  replacement  of  the  same  in  their  sound,  normal, 
and  vigorous  condition. 

After  having  thus  recognised  the  aim  of  miracles,  their 
entire  significance  becomes  clear  to  us.  They  23resuppose  man 
estranged  from  God,  and  a  depraved  course  of  nature,  and  they 
aim  at  the  restoration,  salvation,  and  consummation  of  the  world. 
They  only  break  through  the  laws  of  nature  in  order  to  raise 
her  from  her  imperfection  and  bondage  to  the  freedom  and 
glory  which  was  her  original  aim.  They  are  isolated  mani¬ 
festations  of  a  new  creative  activity  of  the  divine  will,  infusions 
of  a  reorganizing  power  into  the  life  of  nature,  whereby  it  is 
agitated  and  excited.  This  holy  purpose  lies,  without  excep¬ 
tion,  at  the  foundation  of  all  true  miracles,  and  in  this  especially 
consists  the  difference  between  the  scriptural  and  apocryphal 
miracles.  Hence  miracles  in  Scripture  are  so  often  called 
signs,  as  we  saw  above.  They  are  always  signs  of  the  divine 
intention  which  aims  at  the  salvation  of  the  world ;  tokens 

*  Beysclilag. 


316 


THE  MODEllX  NEGATION  OF  MIEACLES. 


[LECT.  V. 


that  God  has  not  abandoned  the  high  destiny  for  which  He 
created  it ;  pledges  that  He  is  bringing  it  nearer  and  nearer  to 
this  destiny  in  spite  of  all  hindrances,  and  that  He  will  at 
length  redeem  His  word,  “  Behold,  I  make  all  things  new  ” 
(Bev.  xxi.  5).  They  are  the  first  strokes  of  God’s  hammer, 
which  is  to  break  tlie  great  prison  of  nature  and  of  the  human 
world,  and  to  loose  the  chains  of  corruption  and  death.  Like 
single  beams  of  the  ruddy  morn,  they  prophesy  the  day  of  the 
final  consummation,  when  Christ  will  crown  the  deliverance  of 
the  soul  by  that  of  the  body  ;  they  are  the  first-fruits  of  that 
future  order  of  things  wherein  there  is  to  he  no  more  death, 
neither  sorrow,  nor  any  more  pain— no  further  contradiction 
between  spirit  and  matter.  They  point  to  that  consummation 
of  the  world  in  which  glorified  nature  shall  immediately  obey  the 
spirii,  and  therefore  miracles  will  no  longer  he  the  exception, 
but  the  rule.  For  “  miracles  upon  earth  are  nature  in  heaven,” 
as  Jean  Paul  Ptichter  has  truly  said. 

But,  it  may  be  asked,  is  all  this  true  of  miracles  in  general, 
and  not  merely  of  the  miracles  of  healing?  Let  us  consider 
how  far  the  domain  of  the  miracnlous  extends.  It  embraces 
the  whole  region  of  the  moral  and  religious  life,  and  of  the 
special  providence  of  God.  It  is  the  domain  of  biblical 
history,  the  theatre  of  the  divine.  Miracles  are  the  insepar¬ 
able  attendants  of  revelation,  and  are  tlierefore  manifested  in 
a  certain  portion  of  humanity  to  which  God  has  placed  Llim- 
self  in  a  special  historical  relation,  and  whose  history  without 
such  special  divine  activity  is  entirely  incomprehensible. 
Miracles  can  only  be  understood  if  considered  in  connection 
with  the  history  of  redemption.  And  in  this  their  holy  aim 
appears.  “  It  is  God’s  will,  by  means  of  the  miraculous,  to 
reveal  Himself  to  men  who  are  blinded  by  their  sins.”  ^  So 
He  did  to  Pharaoh  and  to  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  time 
of  Moses  and  the  prophets,  and  subsequently  in  the  time  of 
Christ.  The  revelation  for  which  the  course  of  nature  no 
longer  sufficed,  must  take  place  through  facts  which  lie  out¬ 
side  of  the  course  of  nature.  While  miracles  make  the  in¬ 
n-edible  visible,  tliey  serve  to  make  the  invisible  credible. 
In  them  God  always  causes  His  holy  being  to  shine  forth  in 
goodness  and  judgment.  From  the  deluge  and  the  destruction 

*  Eothe. 


A 


LECT.  V.]  NECESSITY  OF  THE  MIRACULOUS.  317 

of  Sodom  to  the  future  conflaOTation  of  the  world,  all  the 
judicial  miracles  are  designed  perceptibly  and  palpably  to 
reveal  the  holy  justice  of  God  to  men,  who  otherwise  could 
not  he  aroused.  And  from  the  deliverance  out  of  Egypt, 
and  the  manna  in  the  wilderness,  down  to  the  healing 
miracles  of  Christ  and  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
New  Testament,  all  the  miracles  of  grace  make  the  endless 
love  of  God  to  man  no  less  palpably  evident.  Hence  their 
purpose  in  the  scheme  of  redemption  is  likewise  an  educational 
one. 

]\Iiracles  are  also  intended  to  confirm  the  divine  mission 
of  those  who  perform  them,  and  to  add  to  the  weight  of  their 
testimony.  Christ  Himself  appeals  to  His  miracles  as  tokens 
of  His  Messianic  destiny  (Matt.  xi.  4-6  ;  Isa.  xxxv.  d,  6),  of 
His  divine  mission  and  Sonship  (John  v.  36,  x.  25,  37, 
XX.  31).  And  lastly,  they  serve  (especially  the  healings  re¬ 
corded  in  the  Hew  Testament)  to  illustrate  the  internal  miracles 
which  take  place  in  the  souls  of  those  who  are  spiritually 
blind,  deaf,  dumb,  lame,  and  dead.  Yet  their  evidence  or  in¬ 
herent  power  of  conviction  is  not  irresistible  (John  xii.  37). 
It  is  not  so  great  that  contradiction  is  impossible ;  nor  should 
it  be.  Faith  in  Jesus  must  never  be  made  so  easy  that  it 
would  cease  to  be  a  matter  of  free  determination,  and  become 
a  necessity  in  which  no  other  choice  were  possible.  There¬ 
fore  the  proof  from  miracles  is  not  sufficient  in  itself,  but 
should  always  be  united  with  the  still  more  powerful  proof 
from  the  entire  substance  and  spirit  of  the  teaching  of  Christ. 
His  miracles  should  only  work  in  harmony  with  the  impres¬ 
sion  of  His  entire  personality.  Hence  our  Lord  always  re¬ 
fused  the  demand  prompted  by  the  fleshly  lust  of  that  age 
for  wonders,  and  even  rebuked  those  who  attached  too  great 
importance  to  His  miracles.  Hence,  too.  His  caution  against 
their  dissemination  by  those  who  did  not  comprehend  the 
entire  significance  of  His  work,  and  who  would  thereby  only 
have  given  an  impetus  to  the  carnal  Messianic  expectation 
of  the  people  (Matt.  ix.  30,  xii.  16,  xvi.  20;  Mark  i.  44, 
iii.  12,  etc.).  “  The  Lord  prefers  a  faith  which  believes  with¬ 
out  seeing  signs  and  wonders.  But  on  account  of  the  dull 
perception  of  man,  which  cleaves  to  the  sensuous,  God  quickens 
and  arouses  him  by  sensuous  means,  in  order  to  lead  him  to  a 


318 


THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OE  MIRACLES. 


[LECT.  V. 


faith  which  sees  not  and  yet  believes.”  ^  In  the  life  and 
works  of  the  apostles,  miracles  likewise  appear  only  as  accom- 
panim'ents  of  their  preaching,  never  as  of  primary  importance. 
The  Lord  “  confirming  the  word,  with  signs  following  ”  (Mark 
xvi.  20). 

Hence,  too,  the  modest  proportion  of  the  miracles  performed 
by  Christ  and  His  apostles  as  compared  with  the  deeds  which 
a  wonder-seeking  fancy  might  imagine,  or  with  the  “  signs  from 
heaven”  which  the  Jews  expected  of  the  Messiah  (Matt.  xvi. 
1  ff.,  xii.  38  ff).  They  did  not,  even  regard  the  acts  of  Jesus  as 
proper  miracles  or  Messianic  signs.  Although  the  Scriptures 
abound  in  miracles,  yet  the  proportion  of  the  miraculous  for 
which  they  demand  belief  is  really  less  than  in  any  other 
religion.  How  much  more  incredible  things,  e.g.,  does  the 
lAoran  ^  record,  to  say  nothing  of  pagan  my tlis  ! 

Miraculous  manifestations  occur  throughout,  only  so  far  as 
is  necessary  in  order  to  make  God’s  love  or  righteousness 
more  palpably  evident  through  sensuous  impressions  upon  the 
perception  of  man,  which  has  been  blunted  by  sin.  Or  they 
are  intended  to  prepare  him  for  a  spiritual  influence,  to  arouse 
his  attention,  and  to  facilitate  his  believing  acceptance  of  the 
truths  of  salvation.  The  entire  series  of  miracles  perceptible 
to  the  senses,  from  the  time  of  Abraham  and  Moses  down  to 
that  of  Christ,  has  accompanied  every  step  of  the  divine  reve¬ 
lation,  in  order  cither  to  confirm  it  or  to  'prepare  the  way  for  it. 
Whenever  revelation  takes  a  step  in  advance,  it  is  preceded 
by  specially  powerful  miracles.  They  are  only  the  reflections 
in  nature  of  the  progressive  spiritual  development,  which  have 
their  legitimate  foundation  in  the  connection  between  nature 
and  spirit.  And  in  each  case  they  are  necessary  from  an 
educational  point  of  view,  in  order  to  open  men’s  eyes  by 
means  of  sensuous  signs  to  the  spiritual  revelation  of  salva¬ 
tion,  and  to  the  greater  spiritual  miracles  which  accompany 
them.  Moses  could  not  have  made  the  power,  truth,  and 
majesty  of  God  evident  to  the  rude,  sensual  people  whom  ho 
led  out  of  Egypt,  if  God  had  not  Himself  done  it  in  His 

^  Kbstlin. 

®  L.g.  when  Mahomet  is  said  to  have  caused  darhpess  at  noon,  Avhereupon  the 
moon  flew  to  him,  bowed  before  him,  and  slipped  into  his  right  sleeve,  coining 
out  again  at  his  left,  etc. — Compi.  Tholuck,  Verm.  Schr.  i.  1-27. 


LECT.  V.] 


NECESSITY  OF  THE  MIEACULOUS. 


319 


saving  miracles  in  the  sea  and  the  wilderness,  and  in  His 
thnnderings  ‘and  lightnings  from  Sinai.  Elijah,  the  sole 
champion  of  Jehovah,  could  not  have  held  out  against  an 
entire  apostate  kingdom  and  people,  had  he  not  been  able  to 
summon  miraculous  divine  power  to  his  aid,  when  the  nation 
was  to  choose  between  Baal  and  Jehovah.  And  could  Christ, 
when  He  became  one  of  a  race  which  felt  its  external  far 
more  than  its  internal  misery,  have  opened  the  hearts  of  men 
for  the  divine  love  and  grace,  if  He  had  not  caused  its  beams 
to  fall  sensibly  and  palpably  upon  earthly  distress,  sickness,* 
and  death  ? 

Every  miracle,  therefore,  serves  the  purpose  of  salvation ; 
on  the  one  hand,  in  a  subjective  educational  way,  by  preparing 
the  heart  for  greater  spiritual  wonders,  and  affording  a  tan¬ 
gible  proof  of  the  divine  love  and  righteousness ;  on  the  other 
hand,  by  counteracting  sin  and  the  ruin  caused  by  death,  and 
by  preparing  the  way  for  the  future  consummation.  God 
could  not,  and  would  not,  magically  obtrude  redemption  upon 
us.  It  was  His  will  in  manifold  ways  through  a  miraculous 
diistory  to  work  gradually  towards  the  goal  of  the  world’s 
renewal. 

If  we  fix  our  attention  more  closely  upon  the  gradual 
historical  manifestations  of  the  miraculous,  we  shcdl  see  that 
Christ  is  the  centre  of  this  development,  and  the  second  great 
miracle  after  the  creation.  With  Him  the  beginning  of  a  new 
era  is  inaugurated,  which  will  attain  its  consummation  when 
“  all  things  have  become  new.”  In  Him  the  power  exists 
for  the  regeneration  of  the  world,  and  from  Him  it  goes  forth 
to  every  creature ;  in  His  acts  He  appears  as  the  divine 
Liberator  of  all  physical  and  spiritual  life  from  the  thraldom 
o*f  sin :  His  resurrection  is  the  foundation  and  bemnniim  of 

/  O  O 

the  glorified  world,  of  that  new  order  of. things  to  which  the 
creation  is  at  length  destined  to  be  raised.  He  is  the  divine 
Miracle  of  love,  which  was  demanded  on  the  one  hand  by  the 
redeeming  love  of  God,  and  on  the  other  by  the  actual  con¬ 
dition  and  the  destiny  of  man.  But  this  takes  place  in  such 
wise,  that  in  Him  “  the  miraculous  appears  as  His  true  nature, 
as  a  human  life  of  love,  leading  us  through  itself  to  its  internal 
divine  source.”  ^  Hence  the  resurrection,  the  greatest  miracle 

*  Domer. 


320 


THE  MODEUH  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES. 


[lect.  V. 


M’liicli  was  accoTiiplislied  in  the  person  of  Jesns,  appears  en¬ 
tirely  natural,  and  is  plainly  demanded  by  Hi5  own  being ; 
it  was  not  possible  that  this  Holy  One  should  see  corruption 
(Acts  ii.  27  ff.).  And  that  wliicb  in  consequence  of  His 
natural  moral  being  is  worked  in  Him  tbrougb  the  power  of 
God,  is  at  the  same  time  the  object  of  His  own  will,  which  is 
one  with,  and  mighty  tlirougb,  God.  He  Himself  takes  His 
own  life  again  as  He  bad  laid  it  dowm  (John  x.  17,  18). 

The  entire  history  of  miracles  is  grouped  around  this  central 
miracle,  and  stands  in  internal  connection  with  it,  either  as  a 
prophecy  or  as  an  echo  of  that  which  is  begun  in  Him.  A 
glance  at  this  confirms  the  result  just  before  attained  respect- 
imr  the  aim  and  significance  of  the  miraculous,  which  M'e  had 
hinted  at  in  our  remarks  on  the  gradual  progress  of  revelation 
(see  p.  9  7).  Before  the  time  of  Moses,  God  performs  many 
miracles,  but  as  yet  without  human  agency.  The  patriarchs 
are  endowed  with  the  gift  of  inspiration,  hut  not  with  that  of 
miracles ;  on  the  other  handj  visions  and  theophanies  are 
frequent  during  this  period.  Moses  is  the  first  who  has  not 
only  the  gift  of  inspiration,  hut  that  of  miracles,  as  a  mani¬ 
festation  of  his  divine  mission.  Under  him,  and  immediately 
after  him,  miracles  are  frequent,  hut  the  theophanies  gradually 
disappear.  Again,  the  judges  appear  under  the  influence  of 
inspiration  as  prophets  in  deeds,  though  not  in  words.  In 
Samuel,  David,  and  Solomon,  we  see  inspiration  progressing 
towards  the  actual  realization  of  the  theocratic  Church.  With 
the  encroaching  sway  of  heathenism,  miracles  again  appear 
more  conspicuously.  They  are  as  necessary  for  the  re-estab¬ 
lishment  of  the  law  as  they  were  at  its  foundation.  Elijah 
often  inflicts  destructive  blows  ;  Elisha  works  in  a  milder,  more 
beneficent  manner.  The  later  prophets  are  pre-eminently  men 
of  words,  of  inspiration,  until  finally  both  the  gift  of  miracles 
and  that  of  inspiration  cease.  Again,  the  forerunner  of  Christ, 
John  the  Baptist,  appears  as  inspired,  hut  without  miraculous 
power,  so  that  the  miracles  of  Christ  might  make  a  deeper 
impression  (John  x.  41).  The  miracles  of  Christ,  which  are 
almost  w’ithout  exception  beneficent  miracles  of  grace,  break 
forth  wdth  unparalleled  splendour,  yet  in  such  a  way  that  on 
some  occasions  He  performs  many  signs,  which  at  other  times 
He  omits,  as  we  have  seen  before,  because  of  unbelief,  or 


LECT.  V.] 


NECESSITY  OF  THE  MIRACULOUS. 


321 


because  He  foresees  that  they  will  be  without  result,  and 
wishes  to  check  the  fleshly .  desire  for  wonders.  To  the 
apostles  it  is  given  to  work  “  the  signs  of  an  apostle.”  Then 
this  gift  gradually  disappears,  and  a  free  course  is  left  for  the 
Spirit  of  Christianity  during  a  period  characterized  by  spiritual 
miracles.^ 

IMiracles,  therefore,  like  revelation  in  general,  belong  to  those 
crises  in  ivhich  the  divine  kingdom  is  to  mcdce  an  important 
advance.  They  are  connected  with  certain  periods  and  persons, 
namely,  with  the  chief  promoters  of  God’s  kingdom.  The  time 
of  the  foundation  and  re-establishment  of  the  law  by  Moses 
and  Elijah,  the  time  of  the  founding  and  the  first  promulgation 
of  the  gospel  by  Christ  and  His  apostles,  were  decisive  epochs 
of  this  kind.  In  the  intermediate  ages  miracles  fall  into  the 
background.  With  this  the  prediction  of  Scripture  exactly 
agrees,  that  at  the  end  of  time,  when  the  last  decisive  struggle 
is  being  waged  between  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  anti- 
Christian  power  of  this  world,  and  when  Christ  returns,  there 
w'ill  again  be  a  period  of  miracles  (Luke  xxi.  25  ff.j. 

We  need  not  be  surprised  that  extraordinary  forces  work  in 
such  crises.  Analogies  from  natural  life  sufficiently  show  that 
the  moments  in  which  a  new  creature  is  born  into  the  world 
are  not  subject  to  the  ordinary  laws  of  development,  but  evince 
a  plenitude  of  peculiar  impulses,  forces,  and  forms,  which,  after 
the  fully  accomplished  birth,  give  place  to  the  customary  acti¬ 
vity  of  the  usual  law^s  of  life.  It  is  known,  e.g.,  that  the  organic 
functions  in  the  formation  of  the  foetus  proceed  according 
to  other  law^s  than  those  of  the  perfect  organism.  The  same 
is  true  of  the  birth-hour  of  the  Christian  Church.  This,  as 
w'ell  as  every  other  birth-hour,  is  subject  to  other  laws  than 
those  of  the  ordinary  course.  The  man  wdio  makes  ordinary 
human  development  the  standard  for  the  extraordinary  fulness 
of  the  Spirit,  which  appears  in  that  most  important  epoch  of 
human  history,  in  order  to  exclude  the  miraculous,  falls  into 
the  same  error  as  he  who  makes  the  laws  of  the  present 

*  AVitli  regard  to  the  continuance  of  miracles  after  the  apostolic  age,  we  have 
testimonies  not  only  from  Tertullian  and  Origen,  who  tell  us  tliat  many  in  their 
time  were  convinced  against  their  will  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  by  miraculous 
visions,  but  also  much  later  fz’om  Theodore  of  Mopsueste  (+  429).  The  latter 
says :  “Many  heathen  amongst  us  are  being  healed  by  Christians  from  Avhatever 
sicknesses  they  may  have  ;  so  abundant  are  miracles  in  our  midst.” 

X 


822 


THE  MODEEN  NEGATION  OF  JIIRACLES.  [lECT.  V. 


course  of  nature  a  standard  for  the  period  of  the  creation. 
He  is  guilty  of  a  varepov  irpoTepov :  he  places  that  which  is 
later  before  that  which  is  earlier,  and  forgets  that  the  laws  of 
primary  development  are  altogether  different  from  those  Mark¬ 
ing  in  that  which  already  exists. 

From  this  history  of  the  miraculous,  and  the  holy  purpose 
constantly  manifested  in  it,  we  see  in  how  strict  a  manner  it  is 
governed  by  divine  laws,  which  render  the  mere  thought  of  an 
arbitrary  interference  impossible.  Miracles  never  have  an 
anomalous  disconnected^  character.  They  are  connected  with 
each  other,  and  with  the  central  miracle,  Christ ;  and  they 
belong  as  necessary  members  to  the  entire  organism  of  reve¬ 
lation,  working  together  towards  one  great  end,  the  salvation 
and  consummation  of  the  world.  A¥e  neither  see  the  boy 
Jesus  play  at  miracles  with  childish  caprice,  as  several  of  the 
apocryphal  gospels  relate,  nor  does  the  man  Jesus  ever  arbi¬ 
trarily  or  selfishly  exert  His  miraculous  power  on  His  own 
behalf  (comp,  the  history  of  the  temptation).  He  employs  it 
throughout  only  in  the  service  of  God,  as  proof  of  His  divine 
mission,  to  relieve  human  need,  and  for  redemptive  ends.  We 
may  therefore  expect  miracles  to  a  greater  or  less  extent, 
according  as  they  are  needful,  where  the  condition  of  the 
world  and  of  God’s  kingdom  demands  them,  and  where 
unbelief  sets  no  limits  to  the  divine  working  (IMatt.  xiii.  58). 

A  farther  rule  for  the  operation  of  the  miraculous  is  this, 
that  as  it  is  often  connected  with  natural  phenomena,  so  its  pro¬ 
duct  takes  its  place  in  the  existing  order  of  nature  without  any 
disturbance  of  the  laws  hitherto  obtaining;  and  as  respects 
the  form  of  its  appearance,  that  it  is  as  quiet  as  possible,  with  • 
out  noise  or  pomp.  The  internal  law  for  the  human  workers 
of  miracles  is  this  :  their  external  miraculous  power  must  be 
connected  with  inward  and  spiritual  miracles  taking  place 
in  their  hearts.  By  means  of  the  latter  they  must  be  raised 
into  a  specially  close  communion  with  God,  and  they  may  not 
seek  their  own  honour,  but  only  that  of  God  and  Christ.  The 


'  Strauss  {Lehen  Jesii,  S.  148)  is  of  opinion  that  a  God  who  should  now  and 
then  work  a  miracle,  sometimes  exerting,  sometimes  discontinuing  a  certain  kind 
of  activitj’’,  would  be  subject  to  the  succession  of  events  in  time,  and  conse¬ 
quently  no  absolute  Being.  This  purely  e.xternal  and  superficial  objection  com¬ 
pletely  overlooks  the  internal  connection  of  miracles  with  revelation,  and  the 
historical  development  of  the  divine  kingdom  '7 

f  r  -  p  .. .  ,J 


LECT.  V.] 


KftCESSITY  OF  THE  MIEACULOUS. 


323 


internal  law  for  men,  in  whom  the  miracles  of  salvation  take 
place,  is  faith.  Faith  is  the  medium  of  the  divine  operation ; 
through  it  man  surrenders  himself  to  its  efiects.  On  this 
account  such  miracles  can  never  he  considered  as  unnatural, 
nor  as  contrary  to  nature.  And  so  it  is,  too,  with  the  internal 
miracles  of  conversion  and  regeneration.  For  the  recipients 
of  revelation,  who  are  spectators  of  the  miraculous,  the  law 
obtains,  that  though  it  may  facilitate  their  faith,  yet  it  must 
never  absolutely  compel  them  to  believe.  Here,  also,  God 
respects  human  freedom.  Therefore  He  never  intensifies  His 
miraculous  working  to  such  a  degree  that  all  objections  of  a 
hardened  heart  would  be  for  ever  destroyed.  Fie  who  will 
doubt,  always  •  can  doubt.  And  finally,  for  the  historical 
development  of  the  miraculous  the  law  is  generally  binding, 
that  in  proportion  as  the  divine  revelation  dispenses  with 
sensuous  media,  its  miraales  become  more  spiritual. 

Strauss  says,  “  If  the  friends  of  the  miraculous  would  explain 
to  us  its  working  laws  as  clearly  as  we  know  the  laws  whicii 
govern  the  action  of  steam,  we  should  then  consider  their 
arguments  as  something  more  than  mere  talk.”  So  our  oppo¬ 
nents  wish  to  know  the  laws  which  govern  the  miraculous. 
Well,  its  internal  moral  laws  are  those  which  we  have  just 
stated,  and  they  exactly  correspond  to  what  we  before  ascer¬ 
tained  to  be  tbe  internal  laws  of  revelation.  But  if  Strauss 
means  to  demand  a  demonstration  of  the  physical  laws  whicli 
govern  the  actions  of  miraculous  forces,  we  answer  that  this  is 
simply  a  contradiction  in  itself.  For  precisely  that  which 
gives  the  miracle  its  distinctive  character  is,  that  we  cannot 
point  out  the  natural  laws  and  forces  working  in  it,  because 
they  are  not  of  a  physical  or  mathematical  kind,  but  super¬ 
natural.  To  exhibit  the  physical  laws  of  the  working  of 
miracles  would  be  to  divest  them  of  their  miraculous  character. 

This  confirms  to  us  what  we  have  already  hinted  to  be  the 
true  distinguishing  mark  of  genuine  miracles  from  those  which 
are  either  fictitious  and  apocryphal,  or  demoniacal.  The 
divine  origin  of  any  miracle  is  apparent,  not  so  much  from  the 
extraordinary  power  manifested  in  it,  as  from  its  moral  and 
religious  character, — from  the  spiritual  power  and  moral  truth 
which  are  reflected  in  it  and  promoted  by  it.  Truly  divine 
miracles  appeal  not  merely  to  our  logical  faculty,  but  to  our 


324 


THE  MOBEEN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES. 


[lect.  V. 


moral  judgment,  to  our  recognition  of  the  divine  in  its  supra- 
mundane  character,  to  our  transcendental  knowledge,  not  to 
our  physical  acquaintance  with  the  forces  of  nature.  There¬ 
fore  it  lias  very  rightly  been  said  that  it  requires  much  more 
intelligence  to  believe  miracles,  than  understanding  to  deny 
them  (Schenkel).  Miracles  approve  themselves  to  our  moral 
sense  of  truth  through  their  connection  with  the  plan  of  re¬ 
demption  and  their  relation  to  Christ.  They  are  performed 
in  confirmation  of  a  divine  testimony.  They  must  either  be 
accomplished  through  the  believing  invocation  of  the  name  of 
God  or  of  Christ  (Acts  iii.  16),  or  they  mu.st  serve  to  awaken 
and  confirm  belief  in  Him  (<lohn  ii.  11,  xx.  31).  A  true 
miracle,  further,  should  either  make  a  new  disclosure  as  to 
some  saving  truth,  or  it  should  tend  to  the  deliverance  of  man, 
or  finally,  should  contribute  in  some  way  to  the  furtherance  of  ' 
God’s  kingdom,  and  to  the  destruction  of  the  powers  of  dark¬ 
ness.  When  such  a  purpose  and  connection  cannot  be  traced, 
tlien  it  is  not  only  our  right,  but  our  duty,  to  be  distrustful 
and  reserved. 

Vulgar  infidelity  completely  overlooks  the  existence  of  this 
moral  tribunal  in  the  soul,  before  which  alone  the  ndraculous 
and  the  laws  of  its  manifestation  are  to  be  judged.  For  this 
reason  we  so  often  hear  men  say  that  they  cannot  believe  in 
the  possibility  of  a  miracle  until  one  has  l)een  authenticated  by 
competent  judges,  such  as  professors  of  medicine  or  physics, 
etc.  Eenan,  too,  is  superficial  enough  to  fall  into  the  same 
strain :  “  kliracles  are  not  performed  in  the  places  where  they 
ought  to  be.  One  single  miracle  performed  in  Paris  before 
competent  judges  ^  would  for  ever  settle  so  many  doubts  !  But 
alas  !  none  has  ever  taken  place.  Ho  miracle  was  ever  per¬ 
formed  before  the  people  who  need  to  be  converted, — I  mean, 
belore  unbelievers.  The  conditio  sine  qua  non  of  the  miracu¬ 
lous  is  the  credulity  of  the  witnesses.  Ho  miracle  was  ever 
performed  before  those  who  could  thoroughly  discuss  the 
matter,  and  decide  in  regard  to  it”  (“  Les  Apotres  Introduc¬ 
tion).  If  Eenan  would  lay  to  heart  why  “  not  many  mighty 

’  Perliaps  before  the  Frencli  Academy  ?  We  would  remind  those  who  felt 
inclined  to  submit  to  its  decision  as  infallible,  that  this  body  in  former  times 
rejected  (1)  the  use  of  quinine,  (2)  vaccination,  (3)  lightning  conductors,  (4) 
the  existence  of  ineteorolites,  (5)  the  steam  engine. 


LECT.  V.] 


NECESSITY  OF  THE  MIRACULOUS. 


325 


works”  were  done  in  Nazareth  (Matt.  xiii.  58),  perliaps  he  might 
soon  find  ont  why  no\v-a-days  still  fewer  are  done  in  Paris. 
Certainly  no  miracle  has  ever  yet  been  performed,  nor  ever  will 
he,  in  order  to  tickle  the  curiosity  of  a  professor,  or  to  remind 
him  of  the  limits  of  human  knowledfre.  He  who  thinks  that 

O 

God  ought  to  condescend  to  perform  miracles  before  “  compe¬ 
tent  judges,”  in  order  to'prove  His  omnipotence,  and  for  ever 
to  silence  all  doubts,  has  no  idea  of  the  saving  purpose  of 
miracles,  nor  of  the  inviolable  laws  of  the  divine  government, 
which,  if  faith  is  to  remain  faith,  must  ever  leave  a  possibility 
for  doubt.  But  difficult  indeed  it  is  to  understand  how  one 
w'ho  has  read,  e.g.,  the  history  of  Christ  healing  the  man  who 
was  born  blind  (John  ix.),  one  who  has  observed  what  investi¬ 
gations  the  really  not  very  a-edulous  Pharisees  instituted,  can 
assert  that  a  miracle  was  never  performed  before  unbelievers, 
but  always  before  credulous  witnesses.  The  man  who  calmly 
affirms  that  no  miracle  has  appeared  before  those  who  were 
capable  of  criticising  it,  a,nd  who  thus  declares  the  entire  Jewish 
and  Poinan  world,  with  all  their  learned  and  wise  men, 
amongst  whom  Christ  and  the  apostles  did  so  many  signs,  to 
have  been  utterly  incapable  of  forming  a  true  judgment  in 
regard  to  them, — such  a  man  simply  gives  vent  to  the  pre¬ 
sumptuous  self-esteem  of  the  nineteenth  century,  which  in  so 
many  questions  arrogates  to  itself  the  monopoly  of  “  com¬ 
petent  ”  criticism. 

Leaning  upon  these  hollow  arguments,  Ptenan  proceeds  to 
contest  the  actuality  of  all  the  scriptural  miracles,  maintaining 
that  no  miracle  has  ever  been  established  as  such,  and  that 
“  all  supposed  miraculous  facts  which  we  have  been  in  a 
position  to  examine,  have  proved  to  be  delusions  or  deceptions.” 
This  result,  of  course,  is  attained  in  a  most  facile  manner,  by 
simply  changing  the  facts,  which  are  too  stubborn  to  evaporate 
into  delusions,  into  myths  and  legends.  Further  on  we  shall 
see  how  M.  Penan  and  the  other  deniers  of  the  miraculous 
conduct  their  business.  We  will  not  here  enter  into  a  closer 
examination  of  the  gospel  histories.  Every  unprejudiced 
person  can  perceive  that  the  source  of  these  temperate,  artless, 
true-hearted  narrations,  is  neither  unbridled  oriental  fancy  nor 
intentional  poetical  invention,  but  simply  historic  events. 
Why,  we  ask,  were  no  miracles  attributed  to  John  the  Baptist, 


326 


THE  MODEEN  LEGATION  OF  MIEACLES. 


[LECT.  V. 


vrliom  all  men,  even  the  adversaries  of  Jesus,  considered  to  he 
a  prophet  ?  Simply  because  none  were  performed  by  Idm. 
Does  it  not  follow  that  miracles  were  ascribed  to  Jesus  be¬ 
cause  they  ivcre  done  by  Him  ?  One  point  more  we  would 
urge  with  confidence  against  our  oj)ponents,  in  favour  of  the 
reality  and  actuality  of  the  scriptural  miracles  (as  before  in 
favour  of  Eevelation) :  I  mean  tire  unique  appearance  of 
Israel  and  of  the  Christian  Church  in  religious  history.  Look 
at  Israel,  with  its  pure  conception  of  God  in  the  midst  of  the 
deep  degradation  of  heathenism, — with  its  ancient  prophecies 
and  their  wonderful  fulfilment,  which,  in  spite  of  all  the 
attempted  deductions  of  historic  criticism,  cannot  be  explained 
away, — with  its  stern  moral  and  religious  spirit  aroused  in 
opposition  to  the  natural  propensity  of  the  people,  and  yet 
sustained  with  wondrous  clearness  and  vigour,  because  con- 
stantly  quickened  from  above.  Surely  such  a  nation  is  and 
remains  an  inexplicable  'phenomenon,  unless  siipernaturcd  divine 
revelations  %oere  vouchsafed  to  it,  i.e.  Sinless  miracles  sometimes 
interfered  in  its  history  !  ^  Once  more  :  look  at  the  Christian 
Church,  founded  and  built  upon  the  belief  in  the  resurrection 
of  Christ,  arising  and  making  its  way  in  the  midst  of  universal 
darkness  and  corruption,  with  new  powers  of  truth  for  the 
conquest  of  the  world,  and  new  powers  of  life  for  its  renewal. 
This  Church  is  and  remains  in  its  origin  and  victorious  develop¬ 
ment  an  bitterly  incxpliccible  riddle,  if  we  take  away  Christ  the 
central  miracle,  or  the  miraculous  facts  of  His  divine  Sonship 
and  resurrection  !  The  actual  existence  of  the  Christian 
Church  and'^f  the  Christian  faith  is  the  simplest  and  most 
irrefutable  proof  for  the  actuality  of  the  Hew  Testament 
miracles. 

The  results  of  these  investigations  leave  little  more  to  be 
said  in  answer  to  the  philosophical  objections  against  the  mira¬ 
culous  to  which  we  before  alluded.  Those  foundation-stones 
for  the  denial  of  all  miracles  which  were  laid  by  Spinoza  and 
Hume,  and  on  which  the  critics  of  the  present  day  still  take  a 


^  Diestel  (among  others)  has  very  clearly  shown  that  the  Monotheism,  as  well 
as  the  entire  moral  and  religions  spirit  of  Israel,  can  hy  no  means  be  derived 
from  a  universal  tendency  of  the  Semitic  race  in  Jhat  direction,  as  Eenan  would 
have  us  believe  (cf.  Jahrb.  fur  deutsche  TheoL  1860,  iv.,  “  der  Monotheismua 
des  altesten  Heidenthums  ”). 


LECT.  V.] 


NECESSITY  OE  THE  MIRACULOUS. 


327 


defiant  stand,  have  crumbled  away  piecemeal  before  our  eyes. 
Spinoza’s  axiom,  that  “  the  laws  of  nature  are  the  only  realiza¬ 
tion  of  the  divine  will,”  stands  or  falls  with  his  pantheistic 
conception  of  the  Deity — a  conception  which  is  not  only  un¬ 
worthy  of  God  and  of  man,  but  also  contrary  to  reason.  The 
Source  of  all  freedom  is  supposed  to  have  no  freedom,  but  to 
be  immured  in  His  own  laws !  And  to  this  Sjiinoza  adds  the 
conclusion  :  “  If  anything  could  take  place  in  nature  contrary 
to  its  laws,  God  would  thereby  contradict  Himself.”  We  have- 
seen  that  just  the  converse  is  true,  namely,  that  if  God 
loerformed  no  miracles,  and  left  the  world  to  itself.  He  icould 
contradict  Himself ;  that  He  must  perform  miracles  in  order  to 
maintain  the  end  for  which  the  world  was  created,  and  to 
bring  it  to  the  destiny  which  was  originally  intended.  His 
miraculous  action  contradicts,  not  nature  and  its  laws,  but 
the  unnatural  which  has  entered  the  world  throusih  sin,  and 
counteracts  its  destructive  consequences  in  order  to  restore  the 
life  of  the  world  to  holy  order.  Only  those  who,  like  Spinoza, 
deny  the  reality  of  sin,  and  its  destructive  power,  can  question 
the  necessity  of  the  miraculous.  The  present  condition  not 
only  of  the  human  world,  but  also  of  nature,  gives  such  opinions 
the  lie  at  every  step  ! 

Hume,  in  like  manner,  bases  his  attack  against  the  miracu¬ 
lous  on  a  series  of  false  assumptions;  First,  “Miracles  are 
violations  of  the  laws  of  nature.”  This  is  false,  since  miracles, 
far  from  violating,  serve  to  re-establish  the  already  violated 
order  of  the  world,  and  do  not  injure  the  laws  of  nature. 
Second,  “  But  we  learn  from  experience  that  the  laws  of 
nature  are  never  violated.”  This  is  false,  because  we  our¬ 
selves  immediately  interfere  with  our  higher  will  in  the  laws 
of  nature,  and  interrupt  them  without  their  being  violated. 
Third,  “  For  miracles  we  have  the  questionable  testimony  of 
a  few  persons.”  This  is  false,  because  the  entire  Scriptures 
are  full  of  miracles ;  and  the  historical  testimony  for  them 
is  unquestionable,  since  the  appearance  of  Israel  and  of 
the  Christian  Church  is  perfectly  incomprehensible  without 
miracles.  “  But,”  he  goes  on,  “  against  them  we  have  universal 
exjierience ;  therefore  this  stronger  testimony  nullifies  the 
weaker  and  more  questionable.”  The  pith  of  Hume’s  argu¬ 
ment,  then,  is  simply  this :  Because  accoxxling  to  universal 


328  THE  MODEE'J  NEGATION  OF  MIEACLES.  [LECT.  V. 

experience  no  miracles'  now  take  place,  therefore  none  can  ever 
have  occurred.  This  proposition,  in  the  first  place,  involves  a 
begging  of  the  question,  since  it  is  not  at  all  certain  that  no 
miracles  are  performed  now-a-days  (on  which  point  we  are  soon 
to  speak) ;  and  second,  it  ignores  the  fact  that  different  periods 
are  subject  to  different  laws,  and  with  their  very  varied  wants 
may  demand  varied  kinds  of  revelatory  action  on  the  part  of 
God.  Certainly  the  negro  who  should  affirm  that  there  is  no 
snow,  because  in  his  country  according  to  “  universal  expe¬ 
rience  ”  it  never  snows,  would  be  committing  an  absurdity. 
And  no  less  illegitimate  is  it  to  measure  all  time  by  the 
universal  (?)  experience  dr  non-experience  of  some  particular 
period.  Finally,  Hume  goes  on  to  demand  as  a  condition  for 
the  credibility  of  miracles,  that  they  must  be  attested  by  an 
adequate  number  of  sufficiently  educated  and  honest  persons, 
who  could  not  be  suspected  of  intentional  deception,  and  that 
they  should  be  done  in  so  frequented  a  spot  that  the  detection 
of  the  illusion  would  be  inevitable.  We  shall  see  further  on 
(in  Lects.  VI.  and  VIl.)  that  these  conditions  were  all  essen¬ 
tially  fulfilled  in  the  case  of  the  New  Testament  miracles. 
And  yet,  in  spite  of  the  evident  weakness  of  Hume’s  argument, 
Strauss  would  have  us  believe  that  “  Flume’s  Essay  on  Miracles 
is  so  universally  convincing,  that  he  may  be  said  to  have 
settled  the  question  ”  {Lcben  Jesu,  p.  148)!  The  author  of 
The  Life  of  Christ  forgets  to  mention  that  Hume  has  long  since 
been  refuted  in  detail  by  the  earlier  and  later  English  apolo¬ 
gists,^  to  say  nothing  of  the  Germans ;  but  then  he  knows 
that  a  very  small  proportion  of  his  readers  is  aware  of  this  fact. 

To  these  objections  not  even  our  most  modern  philosophers 
have  been  able  to  add  really  new  ones ;  and  as  against 
them  all  we  may  confidently  maintain  the  following  truths  as 
the  result  of  our  investigation.  The  possibility  of  the  miracu¬ 
lous  rests  upon  the  uninterrupted  activity  of  a  living  God  in 
the  world.  Its  necessity  arises  on  the  one  hand  from  the 
divine  end  and  aim  of  the  world,  and  on  the  other  from  the 
disturbance  introduced  into  its  development  through  sin. 
Therefore,  although  miracles  are  supernatural,  they  are  not 
unnatural.  Far  from  violating  the  conditions  of  life,  of  nature, 

^  E.g.  by  Campbell,  Adam,  Hey  Price,  Douglass,  Paley,  Whatelj’',  Dwigbt 
Alexander,  WardUnv,  and  Pearson. 


LECT.  V.] 


NECESSITY  OF  THE  MIEACUL0U3. 


o29 


or  of  they  re-estahlish  the  life  of  tlie  world  ^vhich 

has  already  been  deranged,  and  initiate  the  higher  order  of 
things  for  which  the  universe  was  created.  “  Thus  the  natural 
and  spiritual  miracles  of  tlie  sacred  narrative  are  only  the 
notes  of  a  higher  harmony  which  resound  throughout  the 
discords  of  earthly  history.  To  our  dull  sense,  indeed,  they 
may  seem  disconnected ;  but  the  more  we  listen  the  more  we 
perceive  a  connected  law  of  higher  eu^diony  noAv  presaging, 
and  finally  bringing  about,  the  solution  of  all  dissonance  into 
an  eternal  harmony.  Surely,  then,  a  believer  may  look  down 
with  pity  upon  the  spirit  of  the  age,  and  its  declaration  that 
the  harmony  of  the  Kosmos  is  destroyed  by  the  miracles 
of  the  Bible  ”  (Beyschlag),  as  well  as  on  its  blind  belief  in 
the  immutability  of  natural  laws.  The  old  truth  remains  ; 
“  Neither  are  your  ways  my  ways,  saith  the  Lord.  For  as  the 
heavens  are  higher  than  the  earth,  so  are  my  ways  higher  than 
your  ways,  and  my  thoughts  than  your  thoughts  !” 

Even  a  free-thinker  like  Ptousseau  says :  “  Seriously  to 
raise  this  question  (whether  God  can  perform  miracles)  would 
be  impious,  if  it  were  not  absurd  ;  and  w'e  should  be  doing  the 
man  who  answered  it  in  the  negative  too  much  honour  by 
punishing  him  for  it ;  it  would  be  sufificieht  to  keep  him  in 
custody  ”  {Lcitres  de  la  Montague,  iii.).  And  Pichard  Pothe, 
a  no  less  acute  than  liberal  thinker  of  our  times,  remarks  :  “  I 
will  frankly  confess  that  up  to  this  hour  I  have  never  been 
able  to  discover  any  stumbling-block  for  my  intellect  in  the 
conception  of  a  miracle.” 

He  who  denies  the  miraculous,  denies  God  and  His  reve¬ 
lation,  since  revelation  is  mimculous.  All  that  we  before 
adduced  in  proof  of  tlie  possibility  and  necessity  of  a  super¬ 
natural  revelation,  and  of  the  existence  of  a  personal  God 
{vide  Lects.  II.  and  III.),  thus  turns  into  a  justification  of 
miracles.  We  have  already  demanded  of  those  who  deny  the 
existence  of  a  God  (p.  144),  and  ive  noiv  deonand  of  those  zvJto 
reject  the  miracidous,  that  they  should  explain  to  us  from  natural 
causes  cdl  phenomena  in  nedure  and  history.  If  they  cannot  do 
this,  they  have  no  right  to  contest  the  possibility  and  the  his¬ 
torical  nature  of  the  miraculous.  And  we  sliall  show  more 
fully  in  the  following  lectures  that  in  numberless  cases  unbelief 
has  yet  to  find  a  satisfactory  explanation  for  the  most  important 


330 


TLIE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLEg. 


[lect.  V. 


facts  in  history.  The  more  thoroughly  it  investigates,  the 
less  it  can  conceal  this.  It  meets  with  phenomena  in  the 
sacred  history  for  which  even  a  Baur  can  find  no  sufficient 
ground  ot  explanation  (e.y.  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  the  conversion  of  Paul,  etc.).  And  what  is  then  the 
last  resort  for  the  deniers  of  the  miraculous  ?  When  the 
connecting  links  in  nature  no  longer  suffice,  they  are  fain  to 
recur  to  chance,  and  {e.g.  in  the  restorative  miracles  of  Christ) 
to  speak  of  “  good  luck,”  as  Kationalism  often  does.  But  to 
take  refuge  in  chance,  is  the  death  of  all  scientific  investiga¬ 
tion.  Here  again  we  see  that  the  boasted  scientific  method 
very  often  results  in  an  unscientific  abandonment  of  the 
attempt  to  solve  the  riddle.  As  in  the  case  of  Pantheism 
(p.  181),  so  in  that  of  the  miraculous,  we  finally  see  ourselves 
placed  before  the  dilemma  of  helieving  either  in  miracles  or  in 
chance. 

But  we  must  not  close  without  considerii:;g  one  other  very 
obvious  objection  frequently  raised  against  miracles  :  Why  are 
miraculous  manifestations  no  longer  vouchsafed  at  the  f resent 
tlay  ?  and  this  question  we  would  now  proceed  hriefiy  to 
discuss. 


III. - ARE  MIRACULOUS  MANIFESTATIONS  STILL  VOUCHSAFED  ? 

If  miracles  are  directed,  as  we  have  seen,  not  against  the 
world’s  order,  but  against  its  disorder,  why  do  we  not  find 
them  happening  in  every  place  where  misery  and  death  still 
prevail  ?  Sin  and  evil  exist  to  this  day ;  misery  and  disorder 
still  abound  in  the  world;  why  should  not  God  continue 
miraculously  to  interfere  for  the  removal  of  all  these,  and  for 
the  re-estahlishment  of  the  oriqinal  order  ? 

To  this  we  answer,  first  of  all :  Are  miracles  (strictly  so 
called)  the  only  means  through  which  God  counteracts  sin 
and  evil  ?  Does  He  not  first  employ  the  internal  influences 
of  His  Word  and  Spirit  ?  And  this  has  not  ceased  as  yet. 
Sin,  it  is  true,  still  exists ;  hut  so  does  Christ,  the  great  I’hysi- 
cian  for  the  maladies  of  the  whole  world,  and  His  influence  is 
ever  becoming  more  powerful  and  more  extended.  Are  new 
miracles  then  required,  while  the  old  ones  are  still  in  active 


LECT.  V.] 


DO  THEY  STILL  OCCUE  ? 


331 


operation?  Let  ns  beware  of  an  idle  longing  after  the  miracu¬ 
lous.  Lutlier’s  remarks  on  this  subject  are  no  less  humble  than 
true  :  “  The  world  continually  gapes  after  prodigies ,  it  many 
a  time  mistakes  chalk  for  cheese,  and  gladly  believes  in  appari¬ 
tions  ;  believers  keep  to  the  Word,  and  follow  it.  1  have  very 
often  prayed  my  God  that  I  might  not  see  any  vision  or 
miracle,  nor  be  informed  in  dreams,  since  /  have  enough  to 
learn  in  His  Word.” 

We  have  seen  that  the  great  mass  of  those  who  are  averse 
to  the  miraculous  usually  argue  thus ;  Miracles  do  not  hajipen 
now-a-days ;  therefore,  they  never  happened  at  all.  This  is 
in  the  first  place  a  flagrant  transgression  of  the  logical  rule, 
that  one  cannot  argue  from  the  majority  to  the  whole.  But 
we,  on  our  part,  cannot  even  admit  the  assumption  that  no 
miracles  are  now  performed,  without  further  consideration,  and 
must  therefore  proceed  to  investigate  the  question,  %cheihcr 
miraculous  manifestations  are  still  vouchsafed. 

First  of  all,  we  must  admit  that  miracles  in  these  days 
have  fallen  into  the  background,  having  either  almost  or  else 
entirely  ceased.  We  do  not  live  in  a  miraculous  period  such 
as  that  of  Moses  or  of  our  Lord.  But  can  we  find  no  reasons 
for  this  ?  We  have  already  recognised  that  miracles  belong 
to  the  divine  education  of  the  human  race.  Now  it  is  self- 
evident  that  a  means  of  education  must  be  differently  applied 
at  different  times.  The  schoolmaster’s  ferule  is  as  little 
adapted  to  every  age  as  the  miraculous  rod  in  the  band  of 
Moses.  But  we  can  by  no  means  argue  that  because  a  certain 
means  of  education  is  not  required  at  a  definite  period,  it  can 
never  be  needed.  We  have  already  seen  from  the  history  of 
the  miraculous,  that  according  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  miracles 
are  more  prominent  in  some  periods  and  less  so  in  others,  and 
that  the  former  periods  are  always  crises  in  which  the  eyes 
of  men  are  to  be  opened  to  the  fact  that  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  on  the  eve  of  a  momentous  advance.  If,  then,  our  modern 
times  are  comparatively  inferior  in  this  respect  to  many  of  the 
earlier  ages  ;  if  they  have  more  of  an  intermediate  character, 
as  preparatory  for  great  events  which  may  be  expected  in  the 
divine  kingdom,  it  is  simply  in  accordance  with  the  laws  hithecr 
to  recognised,  that  few  or  no  miracles  should  occur  in  them. 

The  apostolic  age  required  miracles,  because  it  was  the 


332  THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES.  [LECT.  V. 

epoch  in  which  the  Church  was  first  founded ;  the  present  period, 
during  which  the  Church  is  only  maintained,  no  longer  requires 
them  to  the  same  extent.  If  that  period  had  miracles  as  the 
means  of  supporting  its  faith,  ours  has  the  testimony  of  history  : 
we  have  before  us  the  effects  of  the  words  and  acts  of  Christ 
in  the  history  of  the  world  and  its  renewal ;  we  see  the 
Christian  Church  overcome  the  world  and  survive  it,  and 
thereby  fulfil  a  great  part  of  the  predictions  of  Christ  and  the 
prophets.  All  this,  together  with  the  constant  inner  working 
of  the  Word  and  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  is  a  sufficient  external 
support  for  our  faith.  In  the  lasf  epoch  of  the  consummation 
of  the  Church,  however,  she  will  again  require  for  her  final 
decisive  struggle  with  the  powers  of  darkness,  the  miraculous 
interference  of  her  risen  Lord,  and  hence  the  Scriptures  lead 
ns  to  expect  miracles  once  more  for  this  period. 

Our  age,  however,  is  still  characterized  by  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  new  churches.  The  work  of  missions  is,  outwardly 
at  least,  more  extended  than  it  ever  was  before.  In  this 
region,  therefore,  according  to  our  former  rule,  miracles  should 
not  be  entirely  wanting.  ISTor  are  they.  We  cannot,  there¬ 
fore,  fully  admit  the  proposition  that  no  more  miracles  are 
performed  in  our  day.  In  the  historij  of  modern  missions  lue 
find  many  wonderfid  occurrences  ivhich  unmistctheably  remind 
us  of  the  apostolic  aye.  In  both  periods  there  are  similar 
hindrances  to  be  overcome  in  the  heathen  world,  and  similar 
palpable  confirmations  of  the  Word  are  needed  to  convince  the 
dull  sense  of  men.  We  may,  therefore,  expect  miracles  in  this 
case.  And  now  read,  e.g.,  the  history  of  Hans  Egede,  the  first 
evangelical  missionary  in  Greenland.  He  had  given  the 
Esquimaux  a  pictorial  representation  of  the*  miracles  of  Christ 
before  he  had  mastered  their  language.  His  hearers,  who,  like 
many  in  the  time  of  Christ,  had  a  perception  only  for  bodily 
relief,  urge  him  to  prove  the  power  of  this  Kedeemer  of  the 
world  upon  their  sick  people.  With  many  sighs  and  prayers 
he  ventures  to  lay  his  hands  upon  several,  prays  over  them, 
and,  lo,  he  makes  them  whole  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ ! 
The  Lord  could  not  reveal  Himself  plainly  enough  to  this 
mentally  blunted  and  degraded  race  by  merely  spiritual  means, 
and  therefore  bodily  signs  were  needed.  In  such  cases,  and 
in  dealing  with  such  men,  miracles  may  not  have  been  entirely 


LECT.  V.] 


DO  THEY  STILL  OCCUR  ? 


333 


wanting  in  tlie  work  of  evangelization  amongst  other  nations 
and  in  other  ages,  and  we  should  not,  therefore,  absolutely 
reject  all  that  is  miraculous  in  the  old  legends  as  mere  fables, 
though  their  statements  must  be  received  with  great  caution. 

Let  me  mention  a.notlier  incident  from  the  life  of  the 
Moravian  missionaries  Spangenberg  and  Zeisberger.  On  their 
way  to  the  Indian  tribes  in  the  endless  forests  and  wilds  of 
North  America,  tormented  with  hunger,  weary  and  exhausted, 
they  came  to  a  brook.  Here  Spangenberg  begged  his  com¬ 
panion  to  bring  out  the  fishing  tackle.  He  did  so  without 
hope,  since  the  water  was  clear  and  shallow,  and  at  that  time 
of  the  year  the  fish  were  known  to  remain  in  the  deep  water. 
But,  encouraged  by  Spangenberg’s  faith,  he  obediently  cast  the 
net,  and  in  a  few  moments  Peter’s  miraculous  draught  of 
fishes  was  repeated. 

The  history  of  Missions  at  the  present  time  affords  many 
similar  instances.  At  a  PJienish  mission  station  in  South 
Africa  in  1858,  an  earnest  native  Christian  saw  an  old  friend 
who  had  become  lame  in  both  legs.  Impressed  with  a  peculiar 
sense  of  believing  confidence,  he  went  into  the  bushes  to  pray, 
and  then  came  straight  up  to  the  cripple,  and  said,  “  The  same 
Jesus  who  made  the  lame  to  walk  can  do  so  still;  I  say  to 
thee,  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  Rise  up  and  walk !  ”  The  lame 
man,  with  kindred  faith,  raised  himself  on  his  staff  and  walked, 
to  the  astonishment  of  all  who  knew  him  {vide  the  Memoir 
of  Klcinschmidt,  Barmen  1866,  p.  58  ff). 

In  view  of  the  temperate  and  conscientious  character  of 
such  messengers  of  the  gospel,  we  have  no  right  to  doubt  these 
reports  of  theirs,  to  which  many  similar  ones  could  be  added. 
But  those  who  nevertheless  persist  in  doubting  them,  we  would 
point  to  the  i^cople  of  Israel  as  a  perennial  living  historical 
miracle.  The  continued  existence  of  this  nation  up  to  the 
present  day,  the  preservation  of  its  national  peculiarities 
throughout  thousands  of  years  in  spite  of  all  dispersion  and 
oppression,  remains  so  unparalleled  a  phenomenon,  that  without 
the  special  providential  preparation  of  God,  and  His  constant 
interference  and  protection,  it  would  be  impossible  for  us  to 
explain  it.  For  where  else  is  there  a  people  over  whom  such 
judgments  have  passed,  and  yet  not  ended  in  destruction  ? 

But  even  in  modern  times  parallels  are  not  entirely  wanting 


THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES. 


[lect.  V. 


oo  A 

OOA:, 

to  some  of  the  miraculous  deliverances  of  Israel.  Compare 
with  theirs  the  history  of  the  Waldenses,  the  Israel  of  the  Alps. 
Read  the  history  of  the  siege  of  the  mountain  fortress  La 
Balsille ;  how  the  little  band,  having  been  surrounded  by  a 
French  and  Sardinian  army  throughout  an  entire  summer,  at 
length  had  to  face  the  prospect  of  death  by  starvation,  since 
the  enemy  was  guarding  every  outlet  of  the  valley.  In  mid¬ 
winter  they  are  driven  by  hunger  to  visit  the  snow-clad  fields 
which  they  have  been  unable  to  harvest,  and  there  under  the 
deep  snow  they  find  the  entire  harvest  still  uninjured.  Part 
of  this  was  housed  in  good  condition  eighteen  months  after  it 
had  been  sown.  Read  how  in  the  following  spring  one  breast¬ 
work  of  the  small  fortress  after  another  sank  unde^  the 
enemy’s  cannonade,  until  finally  the  last  intrenchment  was 
demolished ;  how  they  then  stood  defenceless,  at  the  mercy  of 
a  cruel  foe,  and  could  oidy  cry  to  the  Lord  of  Hosts ;  and  how 
in  their  extremity  a  cloud  of  fog  suddenly  rolled  down  upon 
the  valley,  and  enveloped  it  in  so  dense  a  darkness,  that, 
although  in  the  midst  of  their  enemies,  they  were  able  to 
climb  down  the  rocks  unseen  and  effect  their  escape.  This 
occurred  on  the  13th  of  May  1G90.  Does  it  not  remind  us 
of  the  God  who  once  fed  Israel  so  miraculously,  and  who 
covered  them  with  the  pillar  of  cloud  as  a  defence  against 
Pharaoh’s  army  ?  ^ 

Again,  what  a  wonderful  deliverance  was  experienced  by 

’  Almost  more  wonderful  deliveranees  are  related  in  the  history  of  the  South 
African  Jli-ssions.  In  one  ease  “  the  terror  of  the  Lord  ”  suddenly  fell  on  a 
triumphantly  advancing  enemy,  who  was  about  to  set  fire  to  tlie  mission-house, 
so  that  the  victory  was  turned  into  a  sudden  flight,  and  both  friends  and  foes 
were  compelled  to  confess  that  God  had  fought  for  His  people.  ( Vide  Klein- 
schmklt,  ubi  supra,  pp.  73,  77 ;  cf.  Ps.  xxxiv.  8,  and  2  Kings  vii.  6  ff.) 

Another  most  remarkable  instance  occurred  in  the  case  of  a  missionary  of  the 
Hhenish  Society,  named  Nommensen,  working  in  Sumatra.  On  one  occasion 
a  heathen  who  had  designs  on  bis  life  managed  secretly  to  mix  a  deadh’^  poison 
in  the  rice  which  Nommensen  was  preparing  for  his  dinner.  Without  suspicion 
the  missionary  ate  the  rice,  and  the  heathen  watclied  for  him  to  fall  down  dead. 
Instead  of  this,  however,  the  promise  contained  in  Mark  xvi.  18  was  fulfilled, 
and  he  did  not  experience  the  sliglitest  inconvenience.  The  heathen,  by  this 
palpable  miraculous  proof  of  the  Christian  God’s  power,  became  convinced  of 
the  truth,  and  was  eventually  converted  .  but  not  until  his  conscience  had  im¬ 
pelled  him  to  confess  his  guilt  to  Nommensen,  did  the  latter  know  from  what 
danger  he  had  been  preserved.  This  incident  is  well  attested  (ct.  V.  Kohden, 
Geschi elite  der  rhein.  MlssionsgesMschaft,  2d  ed.,  p.  324),  and  the  missionary 
still  lives  (1873). 


LECT.  V.] 


DO  THEY  STILL  OCCUR  ? 


r»  o  ^ 
O  O  O 


the  crew  of  the  missionary  ship  Harmony,  which  every 
year  visits  the  Moravian  stations  on  the  coast  of  Laljrador, 
and  supplies  them  vdth  provisions  !  Some  years  ago  an  iceberg 
was  one  day  perceived  drifting  rapidly  towards  the  vessel. 
A  moment  more,  and  it  would  have  inevitably  been  dashed  to 
pieces.  At  a  distance  of  only  one  Joot  from  the  ship,  the 
monster  suddenly  stopped  in  its  course,  and  drifted  away 
again.  I  myself  have  heard  the  captain  of  the  Harmony 
attest  the  truth  of  this  incident,  which  the  entire  crew  declared 
to  be  a  miracle.  Cases  of  this  sort,  especially  as  regards  the 
marvellous  deliverances  of  children,  could  be  multiplied  in¬ 
definitely,  but  they  belong  to  miracles  in  the  wider  sense. 

But  even  apart  from  the  history  of  Missions,  especially  in 
the  healing  of  the  sick  and  in  miraculous  answers  to  prayer, 
our  times  offer  resemblances  at  least  to  the  apostolic  age. 

You  all  know  with  what  victorious  faith  Luther  once 
wrestled  with  God  in  prayer  at  the  bedside  of  the  dying 
Melanchthon,  and  how  he  then  with  firm  confidence  went  up  to 
the  sick  man,  who  felt  that  his  last  hour  had  come,  and  taking 
him  by  the  hand,  said,  “Be  of  good  cheer,  Philip,  you  shall 
not  die;”  and  how  from  that  hour  Melanchthon  revived.  Johann 
Albrecht  Bengel,  famous  as  the  best  interpreter  of  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture  in  the  last  century,  relates  that  a  girl  in  a  little  town  of 
South  Germany,^  who  had  been  paralysed  for  twenty  years, 
%vas  suddenly  healed  by  the  prayer  of  faith.  The  case  was 
examined  and  iwMicly  certified  to  be  a  miracle.  And  surel}^ 
the  veracity  of  an  informant  like  Bengel  cannot  be  questioned. 

IMost  of  us  are  aware  that  wonderful  things  are  related  of 
the  healing  of  the  sick  at  the  present  day.  Yet  these  are 
but  weak  analogies  of  that  divine  power  of  healing  in  the 
New  Testament  history,  through  which  the  severest  and  most 
chronic  cases  w’ere  instantly  cured  by  a  word.  Our  age,  it  is 
true,  can  show  more  cases  of  w’onderful  answers  to  prayer 
than  many  previous  ones;^  and  assuredly  all  history  as  well 
as  tlie  present  period  abounds  in  wonders  of  the  divine  govern- 

*  Leonherg,  near  Stuttgart. 

*  I  need  only  remind  jmu  of  the  humble  origin  and  the  grand  development  of 
BO  many  Clnistian  in.stitutions  and  societies  as  related  in  the  memoirs  of  A.  H. 
Franlce,  J.  Falk,  Jung  Stilling,  J.  Gossner,  George  Miiller  of  Bristol,  Theodor 
Fliedner,  L.  Harms,  J.Wichern,  and  others,  whom  Spurgeon  designates  “modern 
workers  ol  miracles.” 


THE  MODERN  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES.  [lECT.  V. 


n  n  r* 

oob 

ment,  and  in  sudden  divine  interpositions  which  are  no  less 
the  workings  of  God’s  providence  for  being  often  brought 
about  by  circumstances  or  men,  and  thus  concealed  from  us 
through  the  dimness  of  our  spiritual  vision.  But  these  signs 
and  wonders  do  not  possess  the  same  force  and  clearness  as 
the  biblical  miracles. 

On  the  otlier  hand,  we  see  the  sceptics  of  the  present  day 
reject  with  scorn  the  appeal  to  the  lives  of  God's  children,  and 
the  clear  proofs  afforded  by  them,  for  every  one  who  is  not 
wilfully  blind,  of  a  special  divine  providence ;  and  we  find 
them  presuming  to  derive  from  merely  natural  sources  all  the 
answers  to  prayer,  and  all  the  dearest  experiences  of  the 
children  of  God,  or  representing  them  as  self-deceptions.^ 
This  shows  us  clearly  that  it  is  the  want  of  faith  in  our  age 
which  is  tlie  greatest  hindrance  to  the  stronger  and  more 
marked  appearance  of  that  miraculous  power  which  is  working 
here  and  there  in  quiet  concealment.  Uiibelief  is  the  final  and 
the  most  important  reason  for  the  retrogression  of  miracles. 

•  We  often  sec  unbelievers  greatly  embarrassed  by  the  countless  and  undeniable 
answers  to  prayer  in  the  lives  of  many  cbildren  of  God  ;  answers  wliicli  it  is 
ridiculous  to  attribute  to  cliance.  An  instance  of  this  may  be  seen  in  the 
desperate  explanation  attempted  by  Perty  (in  his  work,  Die  mystischen 
Erscheinungen  der  menschlichen  Natur,  1861).  According  to  him,  those 
results  proceed,  not  from  the  influence  of  the  suppliant  upon  God,  but  from  the 
mystic  working  of  one  human  soul  upon  another.  The  spiritual  energy  of  the 
suppliant  occasions  disquietude  in  other  souls  until  they  have  satisfied  his  needs. 
If  this  be  so,  then  men  and  not  God  hear  prayer.  What  a  wild  fancy  is  this  ! 
Indeed,  it  is  an  incomparably  greater  miracle  than  that  God  should  answer 
prayer  !  In  many  cases  help  comes  from  a  person  whom  the  supjdiant  did  not 
know — of  whose  existence  he  was  unconscious  ;  or  it  does  not  come  through 
persons  at  all,  but  through  things  and  circumstances.  How,  in  these  cases,  is  a 
psychical  influence  conceivable?  We  see  how  unbelief  in  its  despair  prefers  to 
accept  the  purest  impossibility  rather  than  the  simple  truth  of  Scripture.  In 
this  respect  it  is  still  true  that  “professing  themselves  to  be  wise,  they  become 
fools!”  (Cf.  Apologet.  Beitrilge  von  Gess  und  Riggenhach,  p.  187.)  The 
Gartenlauhe  remarks  in  a  similar  strain  with  regard  to  George  Muller’s  won¬ 
derful  work  :  ‘  ‘  The  ‘  Lord  ’  who  went  before  Muller  was  merely  another  form 
tor  his  own  German  energy,  his  simple,  feeling  heart,  etc., — a  form  dear  to  him 
and  imposing  to  the  English  public.”  Whoever  takes  the  pains  to  read  in 
The.  Lord's  deedings  lolth  G.  Muller  (1860,  6th  ed.),  and  to  learn  how,  without 
ever  applying  to  any  one  for  a  gift,  he  received  the  means  to  build  those  great 
palaces  near  llristol,  in  which  he  provides  for  2000  orphans,  only  through  prayer, 
will  immediately  realise  the  folly  of  such  a  jiidgment.  If  it  is  always  men  who 
do  such  things,  and  not  God,  why  do  not  these  enlightened  gentlemen  make  use 
of  their  own  “simple,  feeling  hearts,”  and  some  “imposing  form,”  say  that  of 
Materialism,  in  order  to  perform  like  wonders  ? 


LECT.  V.] 


DO  THEY  STILL  OCCUE  ? 


337 


But  tlioucrli  these  facts — beincr  miracles  in  a  wider  sense 

»  O  O 

only — may  be  no  direct  proof  for  the  miraculous,  strictly  so 
called,  still  they  plainly  prove  that  the  omnipotent  God  is 
everywhere  present  and  active  in  the  natural  as  well  as  in 
the  spiritual  world.  But  when  this  fact  is  once  admitted,  it 
follows  that  the  miraculous  is  constantly  possible,  and  that 
God  need  not  disturb  nor  destroy  anything  when  He  performs 
a  miracle  properly  so  called,  of  which  we  have  at  least  single 
examples  in  our  own  days. 

These  alone  may  not  be  sufficient  to  lead  one  to  a  belief  in 
the  truth  of  the  biblical  miracles.  But  there  is  a  still  more 
cogent  consideration  which  I  would  finally  seek  to  impress 
upon  you,  viz.  that  hy  a  daiial  of  the  miramlous  we  do  not 
in  the  least  escape  miracles,  hut  only  hare  to  helieve  in  greeder 
prodigies. 

We  have  already  seen  that  he  who  believes  in  God  must 
also  believe  in  the  miraculous.  Though  one  may  not  believe  in 
God,  yet  he  must  believe  in  the  miracle  of  the  world,  which, 
through  a  miracle,  must  have  existed  from  eternity,  and  must 
have  developed  and  preserved  itself  up  to  its  present  condition 
by  means  of  still  greater  miracles  and  riddles.  If  one  does  not 
believe  in  the  miraculous  creation  of  man,  he  must  believe  in 
his  descent  from  the  monkey,  and  further  back  in  his  genera¬ 
tion,  from  the  original  slime — a  wild  sujrposition  which  is 
contradicted  by  all  experience  and  moral  consciousness.  He 
who  does  not  believe  in  the  miraculous  revelation  of  God  in 
history,  especially  in  Christ,  must  assume  that  a  people  like 
Israel,  and  a  phenomenon  like  Christianity,  could  have  arisen  of 
their  own  accord ;  he  must  assume  that  the  preaching  of  a  few 
poor  Galilean  fishermen  could  have  overcome  the  world,  and 
have  ruled  it  spiritually  until  now,  without  the  co-operation  of 
divine  power.  And  would  that  not  be  a  far  greater  miracle  ? 
He  who  does  not  believe  in  the  continual  government  of  God’s 
providence  has  lost  the  key  for  understanding  the  entire 
history  of  the  world,  of  the  divine  kingdom,  and  of  his  own 
life,  and  has  no  longer  any  safeguard  against  the  thoughtless 
belief  in  chance,  which  explains  nothing. 

As  the  Bible  is  much  more  inexplicable  if  we  suppose  it 
uninspired  than  if  we  grant  its  inspiration,  so,  too,  the  natural 
and  the  moral  world  are  infinitely  more  full  of  riddles  without 

Y 


338  THE  MODERX  NEGATION  OF  MIRACLES.  [lECT.  V, 

the  belief  in  miracles  than  with  it.  Though  the  latter  may 
still  leave  much  that  is  incomprehensible,  yet  the  many  com¬ 
prehensible  things  Avhich  we  find  in  Holy  Scripture  should 
induce  us  to  believe  the  incomprehensible  too.  This  is  how 
children  learn.  For  the  sake  of  what  they  already  understand, 
they  accept  that  which  for  a  long  time  is  still  beyond  their 
powers  of  comprehension ;  and  this  is  precisely  the  way  to 
make  progress  in  learning.  In  this  respect  we  have  much  to 
learn  from  children,  and  especially  do  we  see  in  them  the 
simple  heauty  and  naturalness  of  the  belief  in  miracles.  Since 
they  have  no  doubt  whatever  of  the  existence  of  a  higher 
world  with  its  heavenly  powers  of  love,  miracles  seem  just  as 
natural  to  them  as  to  the  amiels  ;  since  their  hearts  are  still 
open,  and  their  consciences  but  little  burdened,  they  joyously 
believe  in  the  influence  and  interference  of  these  divine 
powers  in  our  lives.  Were  our  children  to  find  in  some  cpiiet 
meadow  a  ladder  reaching  up  to  heaven,  they  would  not  be  so 
greatly  astonished,  but  would  straightway  ascend  it,  while  we 
older  people  still  stood  below,  engrossed  in  critical  considera¬ 
tions.  And  which  would  be  the  wiser  ? 

There  are  in  our  day  many  doubtful  souls,  who,  if  they  meet 
with  a  miracle  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  swallow  it  as  a  bitter 
pill,  or  even  allow  it  to  spoil  their  delight  in  the  Word  of 
God.  And  why  ?  Because  they  would  fain  measure  the  great 
ways  of  God  by  their  own  small  ideas,  which  are  not  even 
adequate  to  the  understanding  of  that  which  daily  takes  place 
around  theni.^  Because  they  think  far  too  highly  of  our 
human  wisdom  and  knowledge,  they  have  far  too  small  con¬ 
ceptions  of  God  and  of  His  mighty  power.  This  view  must 
be  reversed  in  order  to  lead  us  to  a  belief  in  the  miraculous. 
Think  very  highly,  I  pray  you,  of  the  infinite  God,  and  make 
a  very  lowly  estimate  of  all  human  knowledge  and  actions, 
and  then,  my  respected  hearers,  the  Scripture  miracles  will 
prove  to  you  no  longer  a  cross,  but  a  comfort ;  a  source  no 
longer  of  timid  doubts,  but  of  heartfelt  joy  and  of  stronger 
faith  ! 

As  is  Christ  Himself,  so  certainly  are  all  miracles,  a  sign 
which  may  be  spoken  against  (Luke  ii.  34) ;  clear  and  unmis- 

'  Loi'd  Bacon  truly  says  :  “Animus  ad  amplitudinera  ni3'steriorum  pro  modulo 
Bao  dilatetur,  non  niysteria  ad  angustias  aniini  constringautur.” 


LECT.  V,] 


DO  THEY  STILL  OCCUR  ? 


339 


takeable  enough  for  him  who  is  willing  to  believe,  but  dark 
and  uncertain  enough  for  him  who  means  to  doubt.  Nor 
should  it  be  otherwise.  For  only  those  can  or  may  penetrate 
into  the  secrets  of  the  divine  government  who  have  experi¬ 
enced  the  miraculous  spiritual  power  of  God  in  their  own 
hearts.  To  him  only  who  sustains  a  living  relation  to  Christ, 
the  miracle  of  all  miracles,  and  who  recos^nises  himself  as  a 
miracle, — not  merely  as  a  man,  but  still  more  as  a  child  of 
God, — and  to  such  an  one  assuredly,  the  miraculous  operation 
of  God  in  the  wmrld,  as  well  as  in  his  own  experience,  will 
appear  intelligible  and  necessary ;  and  the  supernatural  will 
seem  natural,  because  it  is  shaping  his  inmost  life.  The 
longer  his  experience,  the  more  profoundly  and  clearly  will 
he  trace  the  finger  of  God  even  in  a  thousand  small  events, 
where  the  blind  world  sees  only  natural  laws  and  chance, 
because  he  discerns  that  finger  continually  in  himself  in  grace 
and  discipline.  And  therefore  no  one  can  dispute  his  right  to 
continue  in  that  faith  which  the  angel  invited  in  his  announce¬ 
ment  of  the  greatest  miracle,  that  “  loith  God  nothing  shall  l)e 
impossible"  (Luke  i.  37). 


SIXTH  LECTUEE. 


MODERN  ANTI-MIRACULOUS  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OP- 

CHRIST. 

“  If  they  shall  say  that  no  miracles  have  been  wrought,  they  will  thereby 
only  turn  the  edge  of  their  weapons  against  themselves.  For  that  were  the 
greatest  miracle,  that  without  signs  and  wonders  twelve  poor  and  unlearned  men 
should  have  drawn  the  whole  world  into  their  net.” — Chry.sostomus  (in  Act. 
Ap.  Horn.  I.). 

“  think  ye  of  Christ  ?  whose  Son  is  He  ?  ”  This 

T  y  question  it  is  which  once  more  agitates  the  world 
most  deeply  in  our  own  day.  Thus  did  our  Lord  in  a  decisive 
hour  address  the  assembled  Pharisees  in  one  of  His  last  public 
discourses.  And  whenever  this  question  is  addressed  to  a 
whole  people  or  generation,  it  is  a  sign  that  the  times  are 
pregnant  with  solemn  issues,  and  that  a  turning-point  in  its 
history  is  at  hand.  It  is  not  a  question,  but  the  question,  the 
innermost  vital  issue,  the  decision  of  which  by  individuals  or 
nations  now,  as  then  in  the  case  of  Israel,  pronounces  the 
sentence  of  judgment  on  their  future  destiny. 

The  answer  to  this  question  touches  the  centre  of  our  faith. 
And  surely  the  fact  that  the  assault  upon  Christian  belief  is 
now  being  concentrated  more  and  more  upon  this  its  central 
bulwark,  is  a  proof  that  our  age  is  pressing  on  to  a  decision, 
and  that  the  battle  of  well-nigh  two  thousand  years,  which  the 
Christian  faith  lias  been  waging  with  science  and  with  life,  is 
at  length  nearing  its  final  issue.  The  spirit  of  our  age,  weary 
— and  that  not  without  good  reason — of  m6re  speculation, 
is  in  every  department  asking  for  realities  and  facts.  The 
study  of  dogma  has  had  to  yield  to  that  of  history.  Men  no 
longer  look  to  authoritative  statements  of  Church  doctrines 
or  dogmatic  treatises,  but  to  historical  investigations  of  the 
Gospel  narratives  and  of  primeval  Christianity,  for  an  answer 
to  the  question,  Who  was  and  is  Jesus  Christ  ? 

340 


LECT.  YI.]  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CUEIST.  341 

This  question,  so  decisive  for  our  whole  faith,  is  forced 
upon  us,  not  only  by  the  spirit  of  our  age,  but  also  by  the 
progressive  development  of  modern  theology.  As  formerly 
the  Eeformers  appealed  from  the  Church  to  the  Scriptures, 
so  now  our  modern  critics  appeal  “  from  the  Scriptures  to  the 
actual  history  upon  which  they  are  based,”  ^  and  claim  to 
make  a  distinction  between  the  biblical  narration  of  facts 
and  the  facts  themselves.  In  order  to  attain  to  an  historical 
comprehension  of  the  origin  of  Christianity,  modern  criticism 
first  began  to  investigate  the  apostolic  and  post-apostolic  ages, 
seeking  in  the  struggles  which  agitated  these  periods  to  dis¬ 
cover  the  growing  germs  of  the  Church  and  her  faith.  For  a  time 
the  critics  hovered  round  the  person  of  Christ  with  a  cautious 
reserve.  But  soon  it  became  evident  that  all  criticism  must 
eventually  have  recourse  to  this  as  the  only  reasonable  way  to 
account  for  the  origin  of  Christianity.  Thus  investigations 
into  the  latter  made  way  for  inquiries  after  the  person  of 
Christ.  As  this  was  the  chief  religious  problem  for  the  scribes 
in  Israel  and  the  wise  men  of  heathendom,  so,  too,  it  is  once 
more  the  great  question  that  occupies  the  theology  of  the 
day,  and  has  attracted  more  general  interest  than  any  other. 
This  question  is  addressed  to  us  also.  We  may  not  evade  it, 
and  therefore  we  must  seek  a  clear  and  concise  answer.  No 
one  may  remain  undecided  in  the  face  of  this  issue ;  for  on  it 
depends  our  whole  future,  as  individuals,  as  churches,  and 
(witness  the  example  of  Israel)  as  nations. 

If  we  inquire  after  the  inner  motives  which  have  led  our 
modern  theology  back  to  this  old  question,  it  is  not  difficult  to 
see  tliat  chief  among  them  is  the  aversion  to  the  miraculous 
which  characterizes  the  spirit  of  our  age.  We  have  seen  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  central  miracle  of  history.  He  who  denies 
the  miraculous  cannot  accept  this  chief  miracle.  For  this 
reason  the  deists  and  the  old  school  of  rationalists  exerted 
themselves  to  get  rid  of  one  miracle  after  another ;  but  they 
soon  discovered  that  all  this  was  labour  lost,  so  long  as  the 
supernatural,  in  the  person  of  Christ,  was  bodily  present  in 
the  world  and  its  history.  Since  then  our  opponents  have  be¬ 
come  wiser,  and  have  transferred  the  conflict  to  the  person  of 
Christ.  The  foundations  of  all  supernatural  revelation  cannot 
^  Cl.  Luthardt,  Die  modcrnen  Darstcllungen  des  Lebens  Jesu. 


342  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT.  YI. 

"be  considered  as  destroyed  until  tins  Jesus  of  ISTazareth,  with 
His  unique  life, —  until  all  His  doings  and  sayings,  and  even 
His  peculiar  religious  consciousness,  are  naturally  explained  as 
the  result  of  a  merely  human  development.  Here  we  have 
the  reason  for  the  most  recent  attempts  at  a  purely  natural 
solution  of  this  enigma. 

But  there  is  another  alternative.  The  result  of  our  inves¬ 
tigations  may  show  that  all  these  attempts,  even  the  most 
unbridled  and  arbitrary  of  them,  still  leave  an  inexplicable 
something,  which  the  most  desperate  efforts  to  divest  the 
life  of  Christ  of  its  divinity  cannot  do  away  with ;  and  that 
they  arrive  at  this  something  only  by  means  of  an  abrupt  leap, 
i.e.  by  giving  up  all  natural  connecting  links, — a  proceeding 
which  must  lead  us  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  a  supernatural 
agency  which  here  interfered.  Our  investigations  may  show 
that  the  old  Stone  of  stumbling,  the  person  of  the  Crucified, 
still  lies  before  us  to  this  day  as  a  Eock  of  offence  which  the 
stormy  floods  of  human  criticism  can  neither  wash  away  nor 
crumble  into  ordinary  shingle ;  nay,  a  Stone  from  which  all 
the  learned  human  masons  cannot  even  grind  away  the  sharp 
corners,  which  they  must  needs  let  alone  in  the  unique  grandeur 
of  its  origin  and  its  efl’ects.  If  such  be  the  case,  then  we 
have  a  fresh  argument  for  the  possibility  of  miracles  in 
addition  to  those  already  adduced,  viz.  the  impossibility  of 
removing  the  miraculous  from  the  Bible,  and  from  history  in 
general,  since  its  opponents  are  fain  to  let  it  stand  in  its 
central  manifestation — Christ. 

Xot  a  device  has  been  left  untried  in  order  to  divest  the 
life  of  our  Lord  of  its  supernatural  character.  The  most 
clumsy  method  was,  to  accuse  either  Himself  or  the  gospel 
writers  of  lying  and  fraud.  This  was  the  main  point  in  the 
well-known  Wolfenbiittcl  Fragments,  by  Eeimarus  (f  1 7 6  8),  and 
long  before,  in  the  writings  of  Celsus,  that  heathen  adversary 
of  the  Christian  faith  in  the  second  century.  The  same  method, 
too,  was  partially  carried  out  by  some  of  the  English  deists, 
but  especially  by  Voltaire  and  the  French  illuminati.  In  our 
day  there  is  no  longer  any  difference  of  opinion  as  to  this 
frivolous  and  morally  revolting  theory.  It  is  condemned  by  a 
single  question  :  How  can  He  from  whom  the  moral  regenera¬ 
tion  of  the  world  proceeded  have  been  an  immoral  deceiver  ? 


LECT.  YI.]  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST,  343 

Or  how  can  it  be  conceived  as  possible  that  a  number  of 
fraudulent  men  should  be  able  to  invent  the  purest,  grandest, 
and  most  exalted  character,  the  mere  idea  of  which  far  transcends 
the  loveliest  visions  of  poets,  and  the  noblest  speculations  of 
philosophers  ? 

For  this  reason  the  accusation  of  conscious  fraud  soon  fell 
to  the  ground,  and  others  set  up  the  theory  that  Christ  was 
the  victim  of  self -deception  and  enthusiasm.  We  shall  find 
that  this  supposition  is,  partially  at  least,  accepted  by  Strauss 
and  Eenan,  who,  in  their  explanation  of  our  Saviour’s  words 
and  deeds  towards  the  close  of  His  life,  are  compelled  to  make 
use  of  it.  But  neither  does  this  theory  explain  anything ;  on 
the  contrary,  it  only  multiplies  enigmas.  For  all  the  sayings 
and  doings  of  Christ  which  are  recorded  in  the  Gospels  give 
an  unprejudiced  reader  the  impression  of  the  most  sober  clear¬ 
ness  of  spirit,  the  calmest  dignity,  and  the  most  prudent  self- 
command,  ever  wondrously  the  same  in  all  situations ;  and 
this  accompanied  by  the  glance  of  profound  knowledge  which 
penetrates  through  all  outward  show  to  the  real  essence,  and 
the  sure  judgment  which  is  never  deceived,  but  constantly 
hits  the  nail  upon  the  head.  Is  not  all  this  directly  opposed 
to  enthusiastic  imagination  and  self-deception  ? 

Others,  therefore,  have  attributed  the  errors  and  the  self- 
deception  to  the  disciples,  whom  they  suppose  to  have  formed 
a  false  conception  of  the  deeds  of  Christ,  in  their  superstitious 
prejudice  making  purely  natural  events  into  supernatural  ones, 
and  converting  an  extraordinary  human  being  into  a  God-man. 
This  is  the  creed  of  vulgar  Eationalism.  We  are  to  believe 
that  the  fabrications  and  dreams  of  a  few  Galilean  fishermen, 
imposed  upon  Jews  and  Greeks,  conquered  the  world,  morally 
regenerated  it,  and  have  since  proved  to  be  a  ruling  spiritual 
power  and  an  inexhaustible  source  of  culture  and  education  ! 
And  is  this  the  pass  at  which  exalted  reason  has  arrived  ? 

Since  this  theory  has  been  undermined,  in  part  by  the  his¬ 
torical  contradictions  which  it  provoked,  but  especially  by  the 
intolerably  arbitrary  exegesis  which  it  necessitated,  a  final  and 
most  recent  attempt  has  been  made  to  show  that  the  miraculous 
history  and  the  “  deification”  oi  Christ  originated  in  the  (un¬ 
conscious)  legendary  invention  oj  ilu  first  Christian  communities, 
which  surrounded  and  darkened  the  original  history  with  an 


344  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [LECT.  VI. 


ever-thickening  cloud  of  myths  and  legends.  This  is  the 
standpoint  of  Strauss  and  Eenan.  In  it  they  were  greatly 
strengthened  by  the  attempt  made  in  another  cj^uarter  to  remove 
the  Gospels  and  the  Acts,  as  well  as  most  of  the  Epistles,  into 
a  period  subsequent  to  the  apostolic  age, — attempts  which,  if 
successful,  would  leave  the  time  necessary  for  the  gradual 
formation  of  these  mythical  legends. 

Erom  this  we  see  that  every  possible  method  has  been  tried 
in  order  to  eliminate  the  miraculous  from  the  gospel  history. 
For  it  is  easy  to  see  that  all  these  hypotheses  are  only  set  up 
as  a  means  of  getting  rid  of  the  miracidous  at  any  cost;  and, 
indeed,  as  much  is  openly  confessed.  Take,  for  instance,  what 
Strauss  says  :  ^  “  The  miraculous  is  a  foreign  element  in  the 
gospel  narratives  of  Christ  which  defies  all  historical  treat¬ 
ment,  and  the  conception  of  the  myth  is  the  means  lohich  ive  shall 
use  in  order  to  eliminate  this  element  from  our  sidgectd  This 
“  mythical  hypothesis,”  then,  belongs  to  the  same  class  as  all 
other  attempts  of  ancient  or  modern  Eationalism  to  explain 
away  the  miraculous.  They  are  all  one  in  their  aim,  and 
therefore  we  comprise  them  all  under  the  one  category  of 
“  anti-miracidous  accounts  of  the  life  of  Christ.” 

Erom  what  we  have  already  said,  it  is  evident  that  all  these 
theories  exhibit  one  and  the  same  tendency  in  two  fundamental 
terms,  the  rationcdistic  and  the  mythical.  Under  the  former 
aspect  the  Gospels  are  real,  but  merely  natured  history,  in 
which  all  seemingly  miraculous  events  are  to  be  naturally 
accounted  for.  According  to  the  latter  view,  they  do  not,  for 
the  most  part,  contain  history  at  all,  but  merely  fictions  or 
legends.  Schenkel’s  Shctch  of  the  Character  of  Christ  we  con¬ 
sider  to  beloim  to  the  former  of  these  two  classes :  the  chief 

o 

representatives  of  the  latter  are,  as  is  well  known,  Strauss  and 
Eenan.  The  works  of  these  three  men — in  addition  to  the 
writings  ot  Baur,  which  we  reserve  for  future  consideration — • 
are  doubtless  the  great  authorities  for  the  negative  gospel 
criticism  of  the  present  day.  It  will  therefore  be  our  duty, 
after  a  short  sketch  and  consideration  of  the  old  rationalistic 
view  of  the  life  of  Christ,  to  sulqect  the  writings  of  these  three 
men  to  a  closer  investigation  and  critique. 

Before  so  doing,  I  would  remark,  that  the  attacks  on  the 
*  In  his  Leben  Jesu  f  ur  das  deutsclie  Volk,  1864,  p.  146. 


LECT.  VI.] 


OLD  EATIONALISTIC  ACCOUNTS. 


345 


resurrection  (as  constituting  the  chief  miracle  in  the  life  of  onr 
Lord)  will  he  considered  separately  in  Lect.  VIL,  and  will  there¬ 
fore  remain  unnoticed  in  this  chapter.  The  important  question, 
too,  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Gospels  cannot  he  treated  merely 
en  passant,  and  I  must  therefore  reserve  its  consideration  to  a 
later  occasion,  when  I  hope  to  treat,  in  connection,  of  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  Scripture,  its  inspiration,  the  canon  of  both  Testaments, 
and  the  origin  of  the  individual  books.  At  present  we  are 
only  considering  the  principles  involved  in  the  modern  accounts 
of  our  Saviour’s  life,  both  rationalistic  and  mythical.  So  w'ell, 
however,  have  the  Gospels  been  defended  in  our  days  by  many 
learned  divines,  that  we  cannot  pretend  to  handle  the  subject 
in  a  new  or  original  manner.  We  therefore  simply  confine 
ourselves  to  gleaning  from  those  who  have  gone  before. 


I. — OLD  EATIONALISTIC  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CUEIST. 

/ 

According  to  the  rationalistic  school,  the  miraculous  element 
in  the  life  of  Christ  originated,  not  from  the  facts  themselves, 
but  from  the  superstitious  light  in  which  the  biblical  narrators 
viewed  them.  In  their  simplicity,  they  looked  upon  extra¬ 
ordinary  medical  cures  as  supernatural  wonders,  although  they 
were  perfectly  natural  occurrences;  and  that  extraordinary  man, 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  prophet  mighty  in  word  and  in  deed  be¬ 
fore  God  and  all  the  people,  they  believed  to  be  God,  though 
he  was  really  nothing  but  a  man.  We  find  this  same  practice 
of  reducing  all  that  is  divine  to  merely  natural  and  human 
proportions,  many  centuries  back,  in  some  Greek  philosophers 
— Euhemerus  and  others — who  made  their  national  gods  into 
men,  saying  that  Zeus,  Apollo,  and  the  rest  had,  indeed, 
actually  existed,  but  only  as  men,  whom  their  station,  or  their 
deeds,  or  their  knowledge  had  rendered  famous,  and  caused 
them  to  be  worshipped  by  their  posterity  as  superhuman  beings. 
The  very  principle  of  this  heathen  school  is  applied  by  our 
rationalists  to  the  Christian  faith.  They  say,  Jesus  Christ 
is  a  real  historical  character,  but  nothing  more  than  a  man, 
who,  for  the  sake  of  his  extraordinary  doings  and  sayings, 
gradually  came  to  be  adored  as  divine.  Thus  unbelief  con¬ 
stantly  retreads  the  old  worn-out  paths,  affording  a  specially 


^>46  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [LECT.  VI. 
strikincr  illustration  of  the  truth  that  “  there  is  nothin^  new 

O  \  O 

under  the  sun.” 

After  Eichhorn’s  application  of  these  principles  chiefly  to 
the  Old  Testament,  they  were  carried  out  to  their  full  extent 
by  Dr.  Paulus  of  Heidelberg  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Gosyds 
(1800)  and  his  Life  of  Christ  (1828).  He  declares  that  the 
occurrences  related  in  the  Gospels  are  facts,  but  merely  natural 
ones.  How  can  this  be  ?  Dr.  Paulus  tells  us  that  the  his¬ 
torical  critic  must  distinguish  between  fads  and  opinions,  be¬ 
tween  the  actual  occurrence  and  its  mistaken  acceptance  as 
miraculous  by  the  narrator  or  the  actor.  In  the  tradition  of 
tlie  first  churches,  facts  and  opinions  had  been  promiscuously 
propagated  and  identified.  This  obscuration  of  real  facts,  by 
attributing  tliem  to  unreal  miraculous  causes,  is  to  be  done 
away  with  ;  the  natural  kernel  of  the  matter  is  to  be  separated 
from  its  supernatural  shell,  and  thus  the  actual  historical  truth 
to  be  arrived  at.  By  means  of  this  operation  the  life  of  Christ 
is  transformed  into  the  life  of  a  wise  Pabbi,  who  did  not,  it  is 
true,  perform  any  miracles,  but  instead  of  that,  from  love  to 
man,  executed  innumerable  works  of  charity,  with  the  help  of 
medical  skill  and  good  fortune. 

I  cannot  better  illustrate  the  violence  done  to  Scripture  by 
the  rationalistic  school,  in  reducing  all  miraculous  occurrences 
to  merely  natural  events,  than  by  giving  some  gleanings  from 
the  rationalistie  exegesis.  The  bright  light  shining  around  the 
shepherds  in  the  night  of  our  Lord’s  birth  was  “  probably  a 
meteor,”  or  perhaps  “  the  rays  of  a  lantern  that  happened  to 
pass  by.”  The  changing  of  the  water  into  wine  at  Cana  w^as 
a  “  harmless  wedding  joke  ;  ”  the  disciples  had  got  the  wine 
beforehand,  and  the  twilight  helped  to  deceive  the  guests. 
That  Christ  walked  on  the  lake  is  simply  a  misapprehension 
on  the  part  of  the  reader  or  expositor ;  he  really  walked  “  on 
the  shores  of  the  lake,”  or  alove  it,  on  “  one  of  its  high  banks.” 
The  stilling  of  tlie  storm  on  the  lake  is  resolved  into  the  fact 
that  Jesus,  through  his  calm  and  dignified  bearing,  quieted  the 
frightened  disciples,  and  that  by  a  “  happy  coincidence  ”  the 
raging  elements  ceased  their  fury  just  at  the  same  time.  The 
healing  of  the  blind  was  accomplished  by  means  of  an  ‘‘  effica¬ 
cious  eye-salve,”  which  little  circumstance  was  overlooked  by 
the  wonder-seeking  narrator.  The  direction  of  Christ  to  the 


LECT.  VI.] 


OLD  EATIONALISTIC  ACCOUNTS. 


347 


blind  man,  “  Go  to  the  pool  of  Siloam  and  wash,”  refers  only 
to  “  taking  the  waters  ”  at  some  neighbouring  medicinal  springs. 
St.  John  did  not  intend  this  for  a  miracle  at  all.  The  great 
miracle  of  the  loaves  and  fishes,  which  made  such  an  impres¬ 
sion  upon  the  people  that  they  said,  “  Surely  this  is  the 
Prophet  which  should  come  into  the  world  ”  (John  vi.  14),  was 
accomplished  by  means  of  secret  stores  which  were  in  the 
neighbourhood,  and  through  the  provisions  which  the  people 
had  brought  with  them ;  Christ,  by  His  words,  producing  so 
great  an  effect  upon  the  more  wealthy  among  the  multitude, 
who  were  well  supplied  with  food,  that  they  forthwith  shared 
their  stores  with  the  poorer.  The  daughter  of  Jairus,  the 
young  man  of  Kain,  and  Lazarus,  were  raised — from  a  death¬ 
like  trance.  The  transfiguration  of  our  Saviour  on  the  moun¬ 
tain,  and  His  converse  wdth  Moses  and  Elias,  are  equally 
easy  to  explain.  The  disciples  saw  Jesus  in  a  morning  mist 
on  the  mountain  speaking  with  two  men,  and  as  the  sun  broke 
forth  at  the  moment,  they  thought  that  Moses  and  Elias  were 
standing  with  their  Master,  and  that  He  was  shining  with 
celestial  light.  The  struggle  in  Gethsemane  is  an  “  unexpected 
indisposition  caused  by  the  damp  night  air  of  the  valley ;  ”  in 
fact,  a  sudden  cold.  The  resurrection  of  Christ  is  the  return 
to  life,  not  of  a  dead  man,  but  of  one  who  was  apparently 
dead,  having  been  laid  in  the  grave  swooning  from  the  effects 
of  the  crucifixion.  The  angels  in  the  grave  were  “  the  white 
linen  cloths,”  which  were  taken  by  the  women  for  celestial 
beings.  Other  angelic  appearances  are  reduced  to  lightnings 
or  storms.  Dr.  Paulus  especially  makes  the  lightning  “  fly  in 
a  hundred  forked  flashes  around  the  heads  of  the  Jews,  with¬ 
out  singeing  a  hair  of  them.”  The  ascension  of  our  Lord, 
Anally,  was  merely  His  disappearance  in  a  mountain  cloud 
Avhich  happened  to  come  between  Him  and  His  disciples ;  or, 
according  to  Bahrdt’s  account,  Christ  disappeared  behind  a 
hill,  and  withdrew  into  the  circle  of  His  more  intimate  dis¬ 
ciples,  until  later  on,  according  to  a  pre-arranged  plan.  He 
suddenly  appeared  from  behind  a  bush  to  St.  Paul  on  his  way 
to  Damascus  1 ! 

You  see  that  the  miracle-fearing  rationalists  accomplish 
perfectly  miraculous  feats  by  means  of  exegetical  devices.  Of 
such  interpreters  Gdthe  (in  his  Faust)  says : — 


343 


MODEllX  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHEIST.  [lECT.  VI. 


Slavish  fidelity  is  out  of  date  ; 

When  exposition  fails,  interpolate. 

Assuredly  such  attempts  are  not  exposition,  hut  imposition. 
They  need  hut  he  mentioned  to  be  condemned  by  every  unpre¬ 
judiced  mind  as  utterly  desperate  coups  de  force.  The  whole 
method  is-  one  of  boundless  arlitrar incss,  which  turns  and 
twists,  clips  and  maims  the  historical  documents,  until  they 
say  no  more  than  they  are  wanted  to  say,  i.c.  nothing  super¬ 
natural.  One  does  not  listen  to  the  narrators  in  order  to 
learn  what  has  taken  place,  but  he  knows  beforehand  that 
events  cannot  have  happened  in  the  manner  in  which  they  are 
described.  One  does  not  want  to  be  taught  by  them,  but 
rather  to  teach  these  simple,  superstitious  narrators  by  taking 
the  bandage  from  their  eyes  and  showing  them  what  they  did 
and  what  they  did  not  really  see  and  hear.  The  fruits  of 
this  arrogance  consist  not  only  in  boundless  caprice,  but  also 
in  positive  vulgarity  which  utterly  disgusts  us.  The  fine- 
sounding  term,  “  natural  explanation,”  turns  to  bitter  irony 
when  we  see  that  it  is  most  unnatural  in  its  efforts  to  do  away 
wdth  the  supernatural.  I  have  already  pointed  out  the  irra¬ 
tionality  of  "rational  belief.”  Here  you  have  the  clearest 
proofs  of  it. 

In  order  to  make  this  naturalization  of  the  supernatural 
more  acceptable,  especially  as  regards  the  miracles  of  healing, 
recourse  has  often  been  had  to  magnetism,  and  similar  mys¬ 
terious  though  natural  forces.  Christ  Himself  and  the  other 
workers  of  miracles  are  supposed  to  have  possessed  a  special 
magnetic  power ;  and  their  laying  of  hands  on  the  sick  was 
the  same  manipulation  as  that  performed  by  mesmerists  in  our 
own  days.  The  rationalists  and  semi-rationalists  even  of  the 
present  day  do  not  despise  this  expedient,  as,  c.g.,  Weisse  and 
Hase.  But  what  is  gained  thereby  ?  Did  not  the  cures  often 
take  place  without  any  personal  contact,  and  even  in  some 
cases  at  a  distance  (c.g.  the  centurion’s  servant  and  the 
daughter  of  the  Syro-Phoenician  woman)  ?  Becently,  however, 
this  expedient  has  been  annihilated,  for  natural  science  has 
taught  that  these  supposed  effects  of  animal  magnetjsm  are 
for  the  most  part  fictitious.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  mag¬ 
netic  stroking  often  produces  peculiar  effects  on  the  nervous 
system,  and,  through  it,  on  adjacent  parts  of  the  human  frame. 


I-ECT.  VL] 


OLD  EATIONALISTIC  ACCOUNTS. 


849 


But  it  is  a  great  question  whether  these  effects  are  produced 
by  any  distinct  and  special  force ;  and  the  most  learned  physi¬ 
cians  assure  us  that  sudden  cures  of  any  bodily  ailment  or 
infirmity  are  never  effected  by  it.  Still  more  is  the  healing 
by  this  means  of  such  diseases  as  leprosy  out  of  the  question. 
The  critical  deniers  of  the  miraculous  are  not  then  so  very 
critical  in  this  case.  Having  been  critical  -where  they  should 
have  believed,  they  are  now  fain  to  believe  implicitly  where 
criticism  would  be  most  fitting. 

Others  recognise  that  no  person  in  his  senses  could  find 
accounts  of  modern  magnetic  cures  in  the  Gospels  or  the  Acts, 
and  therefore  have  recourse  to  psychology.  They  suppose  that 
the  immense  psychological  influence  which  Christ  exerted  on' 
the  souls  of  men,  the  faith  and  the  confidence  with  which  He 
knew  how  to  inspire  them,  were  sufficient  to  effect  His 
miracles.  And  true  it  is  that  Christ  demands  faith  of  the 
sick  who  look  for  help.  But  if  the  faith  alone,  without  any 
special  exertion  of  power  on  the  part  of  Christ,  could  perform 
miracles  then,  why  not  now  ?  According  to  this  view  of  the 
matter,  a  physician  need  but  inspire  his  patient  with  the  firm 
belief  that  he  is  or  immediately  will  be  well,  and  he  would 
straightway  become  so  !  And  what  is  gained  by  such  explana¬ 
tions  in  the  case  of  other  miracles,  which  had  nothing  to  do 
with  healing  ? 

But  it  is  not  only  that  these  expository  arts  do  not  stand 
the  test  of  isolated  cases  :  they  are  unsound  in  principle.  It 
is  supposed  that  the  Gospels  confound  facts  and  opinions,  and 
that  the  kernel  of  facts  must  be  extracted  from  the  shell  of 
the  narrators’  false  apprehension.  All  this  is  simply  an  arbi¬ 
trary  supposition,  proceeding  from  an  aversion  to  the  miracu¬ 
lous.  The  man  who  reads  the  Gospels  in  an  unprejudiced 
spirit,  will  find  in  them  nothing  but  the  most  simple,  artless, 
and  true-hearted  collation  of  facts,  with  scarcely  anywhere  an 
opinion  of  the’narrator  about  them.  Indeed,  we  may  say  that 
there  probaUy  never  were  historians  who  gave  so  little  of  their 
own  opinions  in  the  course  of  their  accounts  as  the  evangelists, 
and  the  sacred  writers  in  general.  Never  has  anv  one  \Vritten 
in  such  a  terse  style  of  pregnant  shortness  as  they.  What 
with  others  would  have  filled  thick  volumes,  is  by  them 
related  in  a  few  pages.  And  this  could  only  be  accomplished 


350  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CUEIST.  [LECT.  VI. 

by  a  plain  enumeration  of  facts  untJwut  many  subjective  views  ; 
a  delineation  of  their  main  features  in  a  few  bold  strokes.  Dr. 
Paulus  need  not  take  so  much  trouble  to  get  at  the  kernel  of 
the  matter ;  it  stands  before  us  clearer,  more  transparent  and 
unadorned,  than  was  ever  fact  related  by  any  writer.  This 
grand,  though  simple  style,  passes  by  in  silence  a  thousand 
questions,  which  our  curiosity  were  fain  to  ask :  “  And  He 
entered  into  a  ship ;  and  He  saw  a  man  sitting  at  the  receipt 
of  custom  ;  and  the  disciples  of  John  came  unto  Him.”  Any 
unbiassed  reader  will  see  here  a  simple  and  often  abrupt 
collation  of  facts,  the  chief  object  of  which  always  is  to  give 
a  short  account  of  the  main  points ;  a  style  such  as  even  tax- 
gatherers  and  fishermen  could  attain.  It  is  only  when  the 
reader  puts  on  the  erroneous  and  misleading  glasses  of  a  deter- 
i.nined  aversion  to  the  miraculous,  that  he  sees  in  tl^  gospel 
narrative  no  longer  the  simple  substance  of  real  events,  but  a 
history  overlaid  with  myths  and  legends. 

And  according  to  what  standard  are  we  to  distinguish 
between  the  husk  and  the  kernel  of  a  narrative  ?  Are  we  to 
take  for  our  canon  the  rule  that  the  laws  of  nature  and  of 
general  human  development  are  the  limits  of  historical  possi¬ 
bility  and  of  critical  allowableness  ?  This  is  nothing  but  the 
principle  from  which  proceeds  the  denial  of  the  miraculous, — 
a  principle  already  shown  by  us  to  be  false.  It  is  merely  an 
extraneous  presupposition  brought  to  bear  on  the  Investigation 
of  these  historical  records ;  an  axiom  which  does  not  result 
from  them,  but  stands  in  direct  contradiction  to  them.  For 
by  means  of  it  anti-miraculous  critics  make  that  appear  to  be 
the  husk  which,  in  the  estimation  of  the  evangelists  them¬ 
selves,  is  the  true  kernel  of  the  narrative,  i.e.  the  miraculous 
element.  This  they  seek  to  peel  off  by  their  criticism,  in 
order  that  a  merely  natural  occurrence  may  be  left  as  the 
historical  kernel.  But  why  does  an  evangelist  relate  a  mira¬ 
culous  event  ?  Clearly  for  the  sake  of  the  miracle.  This  is  to 
him  the  root  and  centre  of  the  matter,  the  important  part  for  the 
sake  of  which  the  event  appears  to  him  worthy  of  commemora¬ 
tion.  If  this  be  taken  away,  it  is  not  the  husk  which  has  been 
separated  from  the  fruit,  but  the  true  kernel  which  has  disap¬ 
peared,  leaving  in  most  cases  a  shell  not  worth  preserving. 

This  arbitrary  procedure,  which  acknowledges  as  historical 


LECT.  VI.] 


OLD  EATIONALISTIC  ACCOUNTS. 


351 


only  what  does  not  contradict  our  anti-miraculous  prejudices, 
and  throws  all  else  overboard,  is  evidently  not  the  metliod  of 
objective  science,  but  only  that  of  subjective  inclination.  As 
against  such  arbitrariness  Strauss  is  quite  right  when  he  says : 
“  Either  the  Gospels  are  really  historical  records,  and  miracles 
cannot  he  banished  from  the  life  of  Christ ;  or  the  miraculous 
is  incompatible  with  true  history,  and  then  the  Gospels  cannot 
be  historical  records”  {Lcben  Jesu,  p.  18). 

This  is  true  not  only  of  isolated  narratives,  hut  of  the  life 
of  Christ,  depicted  in  the  Gospels,  as  a  whole.  Whoever  wishes 
to  retain  the  historical  character  of  the  Gospels  cannot  cut  out 
the  miracles  without  losing  all.  It  is  labour  lost  to  chip  and 
pare  down  isolated  miracles,  and  to  give  them  a  natural  instead 
of  a  supernatural  purport.  Not  merely  this  or  that  oecnrrcncc, 
hut  the  whole  foundation  of  the  Gosioel  history,  i.e.  the  person  of 
Christ  itself,  is  intrinsically  miraculous  from  hejinning  to  end. 
-His  words  and  deeds  are  likewise  miraculous :  so,  too,  is  that 
in  Him  which  rationalists  acknowledge  as  historical ;  for  His 
is  a  more  than  human  development,  inexplicable  without  the 
influence  of  supernatural  powers  and  revelations.  In  short, 
the  miraculous  is  not  a  mere  outward  appendage,  which  as 
such  might  be  separated  from  the  gospel  history  ;  on  tlie  con¬ 
trary,  it  is  the  indispensable  basis  on  which  the  latter  rests, 
and  one  of  its  most  essential  elements.  We  should  therefore 
gain  nothing  even  did  we  succeed  in  a  natural  explanation  of 
all  the  individual  miracles,  and  the  whole  rationalistic  under¬ 
taking — apart  from  the  falsity  of  its  anti-miraculous  basis — 
cannot  lead  to  any  real  results.  For  what  use  is  it  to  prune 
away  the  miraculous  from  the  twigs  and  branches  if  the  whole 
tree  be  supernatural  ? 

If  the  miraculous  be  once  denied,  it  is  far  more  logical  and 
honest  no  longer  to  regard  the  Gospels  as  historical,  but,  as 
Strauss  does,  to  consider  them  a  chain  of  legends  and  fictions, 
and  then  to  abjure  Christianity  openly.  For  the  elimination 
of  the  miraculous  element  from  the  gospel  history  can  never 
tahe  'place  without  a  deeply  penetrating  injury,  or  even  a  total 
and  destructive  alteration  of  the  entire  substance  of  the  Christian 
religion.  What  good  is  it  to  us  to  know  all  about  the  linen 
of  the  swaddling  clothes  which  the  rationalistic  exegete  will 
describe  so  learnedly  and  vividly,  if  it  is  no  longer  a  divine 


352  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT.  VI. 

Child  that  was  wrapped  in  them  ?  What  is  the  use  of  de¬ 
picting  to  us  the  cross,  if  it  is  merely  an  apparently  dead  man 
who  is  being  lifted  down  from  it ;  or  of  describing  the  grave, 
if  the  Prince  of  life  do  not  come  forth  from  it  ?  The  whole 
foundation  of  our  Christian  life  is  shattered. 

Take  away  the  miraculous  element  from  the  Gospels,  and 
what  remains  ?  The  threadbare  story  of  a  wise  and  virtuous 
Piabbi,  who  preached  pure  morality,^  and,  having  resolved  to 
make  his  appearance  as  the  Messiah,  managed  by  the  help  of 
a  natural  power  of  healing,  which  he  employed  with  good 
luck,  to  persuade  a  small  portion  of  the  people  that  he  was 
such.  He  would  appear  to  have  been  persecuted  by  the 
Pharisees,  because  he  chastised  their  hypocrisy,  and  finally  to 
have  suffered  death, — that  is  to  say,  apparent  death,  from 
which,  after  a  swoon  of  many  hours  on  the  cross,  he  re¬ 
covered  ;  “  only  daring,  however,  to  show  himself  to  a  few, 
and  afterwards  in  all  probability  slowly  languishing  away  in 
some  remote  part  of  Galilee  from  the  effects  of  his  sufferings.” 
And  to  this  poverty-stricken  story  the  development  of  humanity 
is  supposed  to  be  attached !  These  commonplace  occurrences, 
which  might  similarly  take  place  in  the  case  of  any  man  who 
should  excel  his  age  in  knowledge  and  moral  power,  and  then, 
opposing  himself  to  its  spirit,  should  die  as  a  martyr  to  his 
noble  efforts — these  are  supposed  to  have  unhinged  the  world’s 
history,  and  marked  out  for  it  a  fresh  path.  These  exceed¬ 
ingly  clumsy  and  simple  narrators,  who  in  their  fanaticism 
took  such  simple  events  for  one  series  of  miracles,  vdio  were 
not  even  gifted  with  ordinary  common  sense,  were  yet  able  to 
depict  for  the  benefit  of  mankind  a  character  the  moral  beauty 
and  profound  spirituality  of  which  has  for  centuries  irresistibly 
fascinated  the  noblest  minds,  and  become  their  richest  source 
of  culture  :  they  could  succeed  in  “  writing  a  history  which 
puts  to  shame  the  productions  of  the  proudest  historians  !  ” 
What  a  miracle  do  anti-miraculous  critics  expect  us  to  believe ! 
Nay,  more  than  a  miracle,  an  utter  absurdity. 


^  So  pure,  indeed,  that  it  is  perfectly  unique,  and,  if  taken  together  with  the 
religious  consciousness  of  the  man  who  could  preach  it,  still  points  to  a  super¬ 
natural  origin.  Further  on  we  shall  recur  more  fully  to  this  “divine  remnant  ” 
in  the  life  of  Clirist  which  is  still  left  after  all  the  subtractions  of  critics  have 
been  made. 


LECT.  VI.] 


SCIIENKEL’S  “  SKETCH.” 


353 


These  monstrosities  and  inner  weaknesses  soon  brought  dis- 
credit  on  the  “  natural  ”  explanation  of  the  gospel  history. 
We  have  already^  heard  the  hard  sentence  of  Hegel  on  the 
“  stupidity  and  meanness  which  arrogates  to  itself  the  title  of 
common  sense  and  morality.”  Schelling,  too/  condemns  it, 
saying  that  “  nothing  is  more  doleful  than  the  occupation  of 
all  rationalists,  who  strive  to  make  that  rational  which  declares 
itself  to  be  above  all  reason.”  For  the  scientific  annihilation 
of  this  standpoint,  however,  we  have  to  thank  Strauss,  who  in 
this  way  has  done  us  real  service.  Not  only  did  he  in  his 
former  Life  of  Christ  confute  Dr.  Paulus  step  by  step,  but  in 
his  latest  writings,  and  most  of  all  in  the  pamphlet  entitled 
Die  Halben  unci  die  Ganzen,  he  chastises  the  rationalists  of  the 
present  day,  especially  the  Baden  school,  with  a  bitter  irony, 
and  often  with  a  scathing  sarcasm  nearly  approaching  to 
abuse.  Thus  it  is  that  one  of  our  opponents  often  confutes 
the  other. 

All  the  more  does  it  give  us  cause  for  wonder  that  a  well- 
known  theologian  of  the  present  day,  notwithstanding  the 
undoubted  bankruptcy  of  Bationalism,  and  in  contradiction  to 
his  own  past  history,  should  have  fallen  back  to  the  old  ration¬ 
alistic  standpoint.  I  mean  Dr.  Schenkel  in  his  Sketch  of  the 
Character  of  Christ^  a  book  which  scarcely  corresponds  to  its 
title,  as  it  is  in  reality  nothing  but  a  life  of  Christ. 


II. - DR.  SCIIENKEL’S  “  SKETCH  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF  CHRIST.” 

We' shall  soon  see  that  we  have  a  right  to  place  Schenkel 
in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  rationalists,  although  much 
that  is  in  his  book  reminds  us  of  Strauss  and  Benan,  and  still 
more  of  the  “  Tubingen  school,”  so  that  in  fact  his  book  is 
varied  with  almost  every  hue  of  thought.  Before  doing  so, 
however,  let  us  cast  a  glance  at  his  treatment  of  the  Gospels 
iviih  respect  to  their  historical  vedue. 

Schenkel  agrees  with  several  others  of  the  most  modern 
critics  in  considering  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark  to  be  the  oldest 

'  In  the  critique  of  Deism  in  Lect.  III.,  p.  202. 

2  Sdmmtlkhe  Werke,  Bd.  ii.,  Ahth.  iv.  p  23. 

^  Charakterhild  Jesu.  We  quote  in  the  following  from  the  3d  ed.,  1864. 


354  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST,  [LECT.  VI. 

and  most  original,  and  lie  lays  a  stress  upon  the  fact  that  his 
book  “  gives  the  first  delineation  of  Christ  from  the  stand¬ 
point  of  the  second  evangelist.”  This  preference  for  the  second 
Gospel  may  be  the  result  of  critical  investigations,  the  correct¬ 
ness  of  which  we  cannot  stop  to  examine  here  :  certainly, 
however,  it  is  connected  with  Dr.  SchenkeTs  aversion  for 
miracles  ;  for,  as  he  observes,  “  the  second  Gospel  contains  no 
trace  of  the  ‘  Legend  of  the  Infancy,’  nor  of  the  appearances 
of  Christ  after  His  resurrection and  also,  “  many  of  its  inci¬ 
dents  are  less  embellished  with  miraculous  paraphernalia  than 
the  corresponding  ones  in  the  first  and  third  Gospels” 
(pp.  239,  240).  But  since  even  Mark  relates  much  that  is 
miraculous,  Schenkel  is  forced  to  confess  that  the  “  miracle 
legends  ”  had  attained  the  preponderance  even  in  this  Gospel, 
notwithstanding  its  intimate  connection  with  the  reports  of 
Peter,  whose  disciple  Mark  was.  How,  then,  did  the  miracu¬ 
lous  element  penetrate  into  this  comparatively  trustworthy 
historical  record  ?  In  the  first  place,  “  Peter  himself,  under 
the  influence  of  Old  Testament  precedents,  probably  repre¬ 
sented  some  of  the  gospel  incidents  in  the  light  of  miraculous 
workings;”  second,  “  Mark  treated  the  reports  of  Peter  in  a 
free  manner,  and  doubtless  wrote  his  Gospel  under  the  influ¬ 
ence  of  [other]  oral  tradition,  and  of  the  craving  for  the 
miraculous  which  was  characteristic  of  the  early  churches ;  ” 
and  finally,  we  may  suppose  that  the  reviser  of  the  “  original 
Mark”  (for  the  present  Gospel  is  a  revision  of  the  original 
one)  now  and  then  imported  later  ideas  into  the  older  records. 
Thus,  in  order  to  explain  the  miraculous  element  in  this 
Gospel,  we  are  referred  from  Peter  to  Mark,  from  Mark  to  the 
oral  tradition  and  the  craving  of  the  early  churches  for  the 
miraculous,  and  thence  to  some  later  reviser  of  the  original 
record;  and  all  this  evidently  because  Schenkel  feels  that  none 
of  these  grounds  of  explanation  really  suffices.  He  who  can 
represent  purely  natural  occurrences  “  in  the  light  of  miracu¬ 
lous  workings  ”  places  himself  in  a  very  doubtful  light,  even 
though  he  be  an  apostle.  And  the  man  who  for  the  sake  of 
his  readers  can  make  miracles  out  of  events  which  were  re¬ 
lated  to  him  by  his  teacher  as  perfectly  natural,  is  surely  ill 
fitted  to  be  a  credible  narrator.  More  than  this  :  how  does 
this  very  free  treatment  of  the  records  agree  with  what  Dr. 


LECT.  VI.] 


SCIIENKEL’s  “  SKETCH.” 


355 


Sclienkel  before  stated,  viz.  that  Mark  wrote  down  the  nar¬ 
rations  of  his  teacher  with  great  exactitude  ? 

In  whatever  manner  the  miraculous  element  became  intro¬ 
duced  into  this  Gospel,  the  favoured  record  has  to  endure  a 
very  arbitrary  treatment  for  its  sake.  At  one  time  its  clear 
testimony  must  go  for  nothing,  e.g.  in  the  healing  of  the  palsied 
man  (Mark  ii.  10,  11),  because,  as  Schenkcl  confesses,  it  con¬ 
tradicts  his  view  of  the  case ;  at  another  time,  the  clear,  un- 
mistakeable  sense  of  the  words  is  arbitrarily  distorted, — e/j. 
when  Christ  speaks  of  His  coming  again  “  in  the  glory  of  the 
Father  with  the  holy  angels”  (Mark  viii.  38),  this  is  to  be 
understood  figuratively  of  the  Master’s  spiritual  reappear¬ 
ance  ”  (just  as  if  a  single  one  of  our  Lord’s  iiearers  would 
have  thus  received  it).  In  chap.  xiii.  the  second  advent  of 
Christ  only  means  the  epoch  “  at  which  the  universal  Christian 
Church  began  to  exist but  on  account  of  His  disciples’  weak 
comprehension,  Christ  calls  it  the  day  of  His  second  coming  ! 
In  chap.  xiv.  62,  likewise,  our  Lord  merely  made  use  of  “  the 
figurative  language  familiar  to  the  theocratic  mind”  (pp.  145, 
259,  294).  Probably  it  was  because  he  was  well  acquainted 
with  this  figure  of  speech  that  the  high  priest  rent  his  clothes, 
and  condemned  it  as  blasphemy  ! ! 

If  the  chief  record  is  thus  treated,  it  is  not  to  be  expected 
that  the  others  should  fare  better.  The  whole  history  of  the 
childhood  of  our  Lord,  as  related  by  St.  Luke,  must  of  course 
be  mythical,  with  the  exception,  however,  of  the  story  of 
Jesus  at  the  age  of  twelve  years  in  the  temple.  Why  should 
this  part  merely  be  historical  ?  Because  in  the  other  there  is 
too  much  of  the  supernatural,  which  would  not  suit  Schenkel’s 
human  picture  of  Jesus;  this  event  is  seemingly  more  natural 
(though,  in  truth,  it  points  to  a  more  than  human  development 
of  the  inquiring  boy).  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  appears  to 
Sclienkel  suitable.  It  must,  therefore,  be  brought  over  from 
St.  Matthew’s  Gospel,  with  the  excuse  that  in  the  present 
revision  of  St.  iMark  it  was  doubtless  “  overlooked,”  not  “  in¬ 
tentionally  omitted  ”  (p.  70).  But  our  critic  is  not  pleased 
Avith  all  that  is  contained  in  it ;  thus  the  declaration  (Matt. 
V.  1 7),  that  heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away  rather  than  the 
smallest  fraction  of  the  law  remain  unfulfilled,  is  an  entire 
misunderstanding;  this  was*  really  a  saying  of  the  Pharisees 


356  MODEP.X  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHHIST.  [LECT.  VL 

which  was  controverted  hy  Jesus,  and  put  into  His  mouth  hy 
some  strange  mistake  (p.  271). 

The  worst  treatment,  however,  is  accorded  to  the  fourth 
Gospel ;  and  here  we  see  the  most  flagrant  instances  of 
arbitrary  treatment  of  the  records.  According  to  Schenkel, 
St.  John  occupies  the  last  place  among  the  gospel  narrators, 
because,  in  his  record,  “  there  is  no  trace  of  a  gradual 
development  of  the  religious  and  Messianic  consciousness  in 
Christ,  no  perceptible  growth  or  progress  of  his  inner  life  ” 
(p.  17);  but,  on  the  contrary,  his  earthly  work  is  placed  in 
connection  with  a  pre-existent  condition.  We  cannot  help  re¬ 
membering  that,  six  years  before  the  publication  of  his  Sketch, 
Schenkel  conceded  to  St.  John  the  first  place  amongst  the  evan¬ 
gelical  historians,  just  “because  he  testifies  most  decidedly  to  the 
immediate  and  unconditional  agreement  of  the  self-consciousness 
of  Christ  with  that  of  God.”  But  since  the  substance  of  this 
Gospel  is  “  not  directly  historical,”  there  can  be  no  hesitation, 
if  necessary,  in  doing  away  with  its  testimony.  St.  John  may 
tell  us  that  Jesus,  when  hanging  on  the  cross,  committed  His 
mother  to  the  care  of  His  beloved  disciple  ;  but  Schenkel 
knows  better,  that  Mary  was  not  able  “  to  bear  the  sight  even 
from  a  distance.”  St.  John,  therefore,  invented  the  circum¬ 
stance  in  order  to  represent  “  this  admirable  endurance  of 
motherly  love,  as  an  expiation  for  her  former  strange  coldness 
towards  the  gospel;”  although,  in  another  place,  he  tells  us 
that  Mary  expected  a  miracle  at  the  wedding  in  Cana,  and  was 
therefore  by  no  means  indifferent  to  the  gospel.  Elsewhere, 
too,  in  the  history  of  the  passion,  St.  John  shows  himself  to  be 
an  undependable  narrator :  he  purposely  omits  to  mention  the 
institution  of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  and  brings  his  farewell  re¬ 
past  into  connection  with  the  washing  of  the  disciples’  feet, 
an  ordinance  “  which  was  as  plainly  calculated  to  humble  all 
priestly  pride,  as  afterwards  the  Lord’s  Supper  became  the 
chief  support  of  this  sentiment.”  For  this  reason,  therefore, 
it  must  be  historically  correct  that  Christ  washed  His  disciples’ 
feet,  because  this  anti -hierarchical  incident  is  excellently 
adapted  to  the  purpose  of  Schenkel’s  Sketch.  In  the  conver¬ 
sation  of  Christ  with  the  woman  of  Samaria,  St.  John  has 
misstated  time  and  place,  and  has  erroneously  represented 
liira  as  omniscient ;  nevertheless,  the  narrative  must  be  based 


LECT.  VI.]  SCIIENKEL’S  “  SKETCH.”  357 

on  some  historical  event,  in  order  that  “  the  grandest  of  all 
speeches  in  defence  of  tolerance,”  the  “  exalted  wicle-hearted- 
ness”  shown  in  what  Jesus  says  about  the  nature  of  worship, 
may  not  he  wanting  to  the  Sketch  of  Christ’s  character. 

Indeed,  such  genuinely  human  features  in  the  character  of 
Christ  are  frequently  recurring  in  the  fourth  Gospel.  Schenkel 
is  often  fain  to  give  the  preference  to  this  unhistorical,  specu¬ 
lative  record,  as  against  the  other  Gospels,  and  even  to  correct 
his  favourite  St.  Mark  according  to  its  statements.  The  dis¬ 
course  on  the  bread  from  heaven  in  chap.  vi.  betrays  to  us  the 
origin  of  the  legend  of  the  loaves  and  fishes,  and  is  therefore 
more  credible  than  vdiat  the  other  evangelists  relate  in  respect 
of  this.  The  discourses  of  Christ  as  to  His  coming  again,  are 
more  faithfully  reproduced  by  St.  John  (chap,  xiii.-xvii.)  than 
in  the  three  first  Gospels.  St.John  alone  is  the  true  narrator 
in  this  case,  althoudi  Schenkel  informs  us  that  Jesus  could 
not  possibly  have  held  such  long  discourses  on  the  last  evening. 
And  why  ?  Because  the  reference  to  the  Comforter  whom 
He  would  send  shows  that,  when  Jesus  spoke  of  His  second 
coming,  He  did  not  refer  to  a  personal  and  bodily  reappear¬ 
ance,  but  only  to  an  advent  “  in  spirit”  (186  et  seq.). 

From  this  you  see  in  ichat  an  arbitrary  spirit  Schenkel 
handles  the  gospel  records.  His  method  is  far  more  self-con¬ 
tradictory  than  even  that  of  the  old  rationalists.  Whatever 
can  be  explained  as  opposition  to  “  High  Churchisni  ”  or 
‘‘  orthodoxy,”  whatever  may  be  strained  to  serve  his  wmll- 
known  democratic  church  tendencies,  wdiatever  is  calculated 
to  make  Jesus  appear  as  a  natural  man,  bounded  by  human 
limitations  and  imperfection, — all  this  is  always  a  “  genuine 
historical  trait”  (pp.  40,  149,  208,  etc.  etc.),  whether  it 
come  from  the  Synoptics  or  from  the  fourth  Gospel.  But 
wherever  the  Gospels  speak  of  the  necessity  of  church  dis¬ 
cipline,  and  above  all  of  the  superhuman  dignity  and  power 
of  Christ,  of  His  divine  nature  and  self-consciousness,  be  their 
language  never  so  distinct,  and  the  occurrence  of  such  senti¬ 
ments  never  so  frequent,  this  is  not  history,  but  some 
misunderstanding  of  a  later  reviser,  or  a  legendary  addition, 
no  matter  in  wdiich  Gospel  the  passage  occurs.  Whoever 
pleases,  may  call  this  science  and  historical  criticism ;  in 
truth,  it  is  nothing  but  subjective  inclination.  Hence  the 


358 


MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [LECT.  VI. 


best  critics  have  already  shown  his  self-contradictory  treat¬ 
ment  of  the  historical  records  to  be  a  fault  which  vitiates  the 
whole  of  Dr.  Schenkel’s  work.’^ 

We  can  easily  guess  of  what  description  the  sketch  of 
Christ’s  character  will  be,  wdiich  is  produced  by  such  a  pro¬ 
cedure.  Let  us  look  at  it  more  closely. 

Like  the  rationalists  with  their  denial  of  the  miraculous, 
so,  too,  Schenkel  approaches  the  gospel  history  with  a  pre¬ 
supposition  that  decides  everything  beforehand,  viz.  the 
denial  of  the  Godhead  of  Chrid.  On  the  first  page  of  his 
book  he  declares  that  the  teaching  of  the  Church  as  to  the 
person  of  Christ  is  an  ancient  absurdity,  a  remnant  of  Eoman 
Catholicism  in  the  Protestant  Church ;  a  doctrine  imported 
into  the  Church  by  the  Gentile  Christian  party,  for  the  Jewish 
Christians  alwaj'S  considered  Christ  to  be  a  mere  man.  “The 
statement,  that  Jesus  once  lived  among  men,  and  still  lives  as 
very  man  and  very  God,  must  necessarily  call  forth  the  most 
weighty  scruples  ”  (p.  2).  He  was  rather  “  a  child  of  the 
people,”  the  real  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary ;  “  his  father  was 
a  man  of  the  people,  one  who  belonged  to  the  working  class, 
a  carpenter”  (p.  2G).’^  The  lad  of  twelve  years  old  “calls 
God  his  Father,  as  any  pious  Jewish  child  might  do”  (pp, 
259,  27).  Jesus  experienced  an  early  “  development  of  strong 
feeling,  which  temporarily  repressed  his  filial  piety  ”  (p.  28). 
He  doubtless  “learned  from  the  book  of  Nature,  beneath  the 
smiling  skies  of  Galilee”^  (p.  28).  He  was  baptized  by  John, 
but  there  was  never  any  intimate  relationship  between  them, 
far  less  a  declaration  of  Christ’s  divine  sonship  on  the  part  of 
John  (p.  30  et  seq.).  In  baptism  Jesus  receives  divine  en¬ 
lightenment  “  like  a  silver  glance  ”  from  above,  teaching  him 
that  henceforth  not  the  law,  but  “  the  mild  and  gentle  spirit 
of  humility  and  love,  symbolized  by  the  dove,  is  to  effect  a 
moral  regeneration  of  the  people  ”  (p.  35). 

1  Cf.  Weiss:  “Dr.  Sclicnkel’.s  C hared' terhihl  Jesu,  besonclers  von  Seiten  der 
Quellenbenutziing  u.  gescluchtliclien  Behandlungsweise  lieleuchtet  in  St.iuUm 
u.  Krlt'den  for  1865,  Heft  li.  p.  277  et  seq.  Also,  Ulilhorn’s  valuable  little 
book.  Die  modernen  Darstellungen  des  Lehens  Jesu,  p.  39  et  seq. 

-  And  yet  Dr.  Schenkel  denied  tliis  at  the  General  Synod  for  Baden  (18th  May 
1867),  stating  that  his  book  merely  contained  a  reference  “to  the  parents  of 
Je.sus,”  but  not  that  Jesus  was  the  son  of  the  carpenter!  Cf.  this  statement 
with  the  above  cited  page  of  his  book. 

^  Cf.  further  on,  tlie  description  by  Renan. 


LFCT,  VJ.]  SCIIENKEL’s  "  SEETCIJ/’  359 

Ifc  is  certain  that  Christ  attributed  to  Himself  an  unex¬ 
ampled  clearness  in  His  consciousness  of  God,  and,  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  it,  a  most  intimate  and  indissoluble  communion 
ivith  God ;  also,  that  He  designated  this  personal  character  of 
His  as  an  inexhaustible  source  of  revelation  and  life  for  the 
whole  of  humanity.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  He  attributed 
to  Himself  divine  power  or  dignity,  nor  did  He  co-equalize 
the  “  Son  ”  as  the  second  person  of  the  Godhead,  with  the 
■‘‘Bather”  as  the  first  (pp.  121,  175).  Schenkel  actually 
endeavours  to  prove  this  by  quoting  Matt.  xi.  29,  where  Christ 
calls  Himself  “  meek  and  lowly ;  ”  indicating  that  He  “  some¬ 
times  had  to  struggle  with  anger”  (p.  122)!  Is  not  this 
genuine  Eationalism,  importing  a  meaning  into  the  text  instead 
of  extracting  one  from  it  ?  for  in  the  passage  quoted  our  Lord 
says,  if  anything,  directly  the  contrary  to  what  Schenkel  infeis. 
Christ  applies  to  Himself  the  designation  “Son  of  God,”  in  no 
other  sense  than  “  that  in  which  the  people  of  Israel  or  the 
theocratic  king  might  be  so  called”  (p.  177).  “The  fourth 
Gospel  even,  if  we  examine  it  closely,  contains  nothing  about 
the  God-equal  dignity  of  Christ”  (pp.  178,  150).  But  how 
about  the  many  passages  which  indubitably  apply  to  the 
divine  power  and  dignity  of  the  Son, — e.g.,  “  Whatsoever  the 
Father  doeth,  that  doeth  the  Son  likewise ;  ”  “  that  they  all 
may  honour  the  Son  even  as  they  honour  the  Father ;  ”  the 
co-ordination  of  Father  and  Son  in  the  baptismal  command, 
and  many  others  ?  These  are  partly  passed  over  in  silence, 
probably  because  they  appear  unnecessary  (and  at  all  events 
unsuitable)  for  the  Sketch  of  Christ’s  character ;  partly  they 
are  disposed  of — as  e.g.  the  declaration,  “  All  things  are  given 
unto  me  by  my  Father”— with  a  remark  such  as  this,  that 
“  without  the  necessary  limitation  these  words  would  be 
meaningless”  (p.  120).  When  Jesus  said,  “  I  and  the  Father 
are  one,”  He  referred  not  to  oneness  of  essence,  but  to  oneness 
of  will  (p.  150),  We  have  already  shown  that  these  oft- 
renewed  attempts  to  deprive  our  Lord  of  His  personal  and 
conscious  divinity  are  exegetically  untenable. 

“  From  Ilis  earliest  youth  a  partaker  in  the  sorrows  and 
joys  of  the  people,”  Christ  soon  felt  “  that  His  work  must  be 
devoted  to  them”  (pp.  33,  41),  ‘‘Men  from  the  'pco'ple  %oere 
the  men  of  the  future  Christian  Church''  (pp.  60,  44), — from 


360  MODERX  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT.  VI. 

amongst  their  number  He  chose  His  apostles.  At  the  time  of 
His  first  public  appearance  Jesus  was  not  yet  fully  clear  as  to 
His  calling,  far  less  did  He  at  once  claim  to  be  the  Messiah. 
After  the  temptation  in  the  wilderness  “  He  is  gifted  with  a 
preliminary  insight  into  His  vocation”  (p.  40).  He  had  seen 
from  the  example  of  John  the  Baptist  that  the  old  Jewish 
theocracy  was  possessed  of  no  specific  for  the  moral  regenera¬ 
tion  of  the  people,  and  that  a  new  path  must  be  struck  out  in 
order  to  attain  to  this  end.  Thence  proceeded  His  proclama¬ 
tion  :  The  time  is  fulfilled ;  the  kingdom  of  God  is  come  near 
— i.c.  “  the  old  age  of  ceremonial  minority  'and  traditional 
schooling  of  the  people  ”  has  passed  away.  At  that  time, 
therefore,  Christ  did  not  make  His  appearance  “  as  the  Messiah 
promised  by  the  prophets,  but  only  as  the  founder  of  a  new 
age,  of  a  fresh  communion  of  pious  Israelites  with  God,  which 
should  be  independent  of  theocratic  conditions  ”  (p.  43),  which 
communion  He  sought  to  realize  in  the  circle  of  His  first  dis- 
ciples.  It  was  the  healing,  i.c.  quieting,  by  means  of  a  con¬ 
solatory  assurance,  of  one  whom  the  people  thought  possessed, 
which  gave  the  first  impulse  to  the  spread  of  the  opinion  that 
Jesus  worked  miracles. 

The  opposition  of  the  hierarchical  party,  the  “  orthodox 
school-theologians,”  the  “High-Churchmen,”  alias  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees,  who  took  violent  offence  especially  at  His 
breach  of  the  Sabbath,  convinced  Jesus  “with  ever-increasing 
clearness,  that  it  was  the  aim  of  His  life  to  remove  the  yoke  of 
the  dead  letter  from  His  tormented  people,  to  put  bounds  to 
the  empty  scholasticism  and  arrogant  rule  of  the  priesthood, 
and  to  elevate  the  neglected  and  forsaken  community  of  lay¬ 
men  to  moral  and  religious  freedom”  (p.  64).  Henceforth  He 
represents  “  the  true  dignity  and  the  eternal  rights  of  man  ” 
as  against  the  school-theology  of  the  priests  and  the  spirit¬ 
killing  letter  of  their  traditions  (pp.  64  et  s.,  pp.  36  et  s.), 
and  seeks  “  to  liberate  the  consciousness  of  God  from  all  lorms 
and  limits”  (p.  121).  He  proclaims  the  freedom  of  worship; 
for,  in  truth,  “  liberty  of  conscience  and  of  faith  were  the  start¬ 
ing-point  as  well  as  the  leading  ideas  in  His  whole  purpose  and 
work”  (p.  127).  He  wishes  to  introduce  the  religion  of  a 
universal  love  of  man  ;  that  is  to  say,  “  of  a  univemal  c])arity, 
purified  from  all  prejudices  of  confession,  of  social  standing  oi 


LECT.  VL] 


SCHENKEL’S  “  SKETCH  ” 


361 


of  nationality :  this  He  distinctly  testifies  to  be  the  way  to 
everlasting  life”  (p.  127).  This  “religion  of  unqualified 
humanity  ”  He  pronounced  sacred  in  the  parable  of  the  good 
Samaritan  (p.  127). 

In  virtue  of  these  ideas,  Jesus  wished  to  proclaim  Himself, 
not  yet  as  Messiah,  hut  as  the  Saviour  ot  His  people.  He 
seeks  to  spread  them  by  sending  out  the  twelve,  and  thus  to 
make  the  original  nucleus  of  God-fearing  Israelites  outgrow  its 
dimensions.  He  even  makes  a  practical  use  of  these  ideas  in 
the  regions  of  Tyre  and  Zidon,  etc.,  i.e.  at  the  boundary  of  the 
Gentile  world,  in  order  to  test  the  readiness  of  the  heathen  to 
receive  the  new  doctrine. 

When  Peter,  on  His  return  from  thence,  solemnly  confessed, 
“  Thou  art  the  Messiah,”  this  was  “  a  motto  to  hold  His 
followers  together ;  thus  He  unfolded  His  banner,  and  took  up 
a  definite  position  against  the  hierarchy.  It  would  seem  as  if 
Jesus  scarcely  expected  the  decisive  word  to  issue  from  the 
mouth  of  a  disciple”  (p.  99).  Well  knowing  that,  according 
to  the  Old  Testament,  the  office  of  Messiah  was  one  qiiite 
different  from  the  work  He  had  set  before  Himself,  He  did  not 
approve  of  this  opinion.  But  He  could  not  help  Himself ;  He 
must  of  necessity  lay  claim  to  be  the  Messiah,  since  this  “  was 
the  sole  means  by  which  He  could  penetrate  a  portion  at  least 
of  the  nation  with  His  ideas,  and  thus  attain  the  object  of  His 
vocation”  (p.  98). 

It  was,  however,  necessary  that  His  Messiahship  should 
be  consecrated  by  suffering.  His  entry  into  Jerusalem,  an 
open  avowal  of  His  claims,  and  the  subsequent  cleansing  of 
the  temple — a  symbol  of  the  approaching  destruction  of  the 
outward  temple- service — supplied  His  opponents  with  the 
weapons  necessary  for  His  accusation  and  sentence  of  death. 
He  was  amenable  to  the  letter  of  the  law.  He  “  sacrifices  Him¬ 
self  to  the  killing  commandment,  in  order  by  His  death  to 
destroy  it  in  principle  for  ever,  as  the  most  fearful  hindrance 
of  true  religion  and  morality  ”  (p.  199).  His  death  was  “  the 
victory  of  liberty  and  love.”  The  heartless  law  was  accused 
by  compassionate  love ;  the  hierarchy  was  condemned,  and 
thenceforth  became  the  object  of  detestation.  This  was  the 
.substance  of  Christ’s  redemption  and  reconciliation.  Through 
the  belief  in  His  resurrection,  arising  “  from  a  condition  of 


362  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CUEIST.  [lECT.  VI. 

ecstasy,  the  effect  of  deeply  shaken  feminine  soul-life  ”  (p. 
226),  the*  deceased  Messiah  was  glorified  as  the  ever-livii’ig 
One.  He  lives  in  all  to  whom  His  words  are  spirit  and  life. 
“The  living  Christ  is  the  Spirit  of  the  Church”  (p.  234). 

These  are  the  salient  points  in  the  picture  of  Christ  as 
drawn  hy  Schenkel.  The  first  thing  that  strikes  us  is  the 
facile  and  matter-of-course  way  in  which  he  (in  common  with 
all  otlier  anti-miraculous  writers  on  the  life  of  Christ)  passes 
over  the  question  as  to  the  descent  of  our  Lord  ;  just  as  if  the 
whole  foundation  of  our  faith  were  not  destroyed  by  changiug 
the  “  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
born  of  the  A4rgin  Mary,”  into  the  (illegitimate  ?)  son  of 
Joseph  and  Mary  !  In  this  and  in  other  respects  we  recognise 
in  the  Slcdcli  the  same  old,  scrupulous,  highly  enlightened 
people’s  friend  of  the  rationalistic  age.  Dr.  Schenkel  has 
only  trimmed  his  garments  after  a  more  modern  fashion,  in 
order,  for  his  own  reasons,  to  set  Him  up  in  opposition  to  all 
true  Churchmanship,  either  new  or  old.  A¥e  need  waste  no 
words  in  proving  that  the  Christ  of  the  Sketch  does  not 
correspond  in  the  remotest  degree  to  Him  whom  St.  Alark 
portrays.  But  we  cannot  help  feeling  surprised  that  Dr. 
Schenkel  should  reproach  others,  e.g.  Eenan,  with  “  repeating 
in  many  respects  the  mistakes  of  the  old  rationalists.”  That 
he  himself  does  this  more  than  any  one  is  especially  evident 
from  the  manner  in  which  he  treats  the  miracles  of  Christ. 

Schenkel  distinguishes  between  two  classes  of  miracles  in 
the  gospel  history.  Lirst,  the  miracles  of  healing,  which  “  are 
still  approximately  explicable  by  the  laws  of  psychology,  as 
the  influence  of  a  personality  gifted  with  the  highest  spiritual 
talents  and  the  rarest  moral  powers,  met  by  an  unqualified 
confidence  on  the  part  of  those  who  sought  help  from  him.” 
Second,  “  the  ivorhs  of  absolute  omnipotencef  occuriing  during 
the  latter  part  of  Christ’s  ministry,  “  in  which  all  the  laws  of 
nature  are  simply  suspended”  (e.g.  quieting 'of  the  storm, 
feeding  the  multitude,  raising  the  dead).  Since  these  latter 
break  through  the  bounds  of  human  finity,  within  which 
Christ  is  supposed  to  be  confined  throughout  the  first  three 
Gospels,  they  are  to  be  accounted  as  the  products  of  legends 
and  fancies.  They  reveal  the  “  unconscious  worship  of  an 
enthusiastic  religious  fancy,  proceeding  from  the  deeply  excited 


LECT.  VI.]  SCHENKEL’S  “  SKETCH.”  363 

consciences  and  hearts  of  the  first  disciples  and  churches,  who 
thus  gave  a  hyperbolical  expression  to  the  glow  of  their  pious 
feelings,  and  to  their  admiration,  love,  and  reverence  for  the 
departed  hero, — an  expression  which,  naturally  enough,  was 
scarcely  in  accordance  with  the  standards  of  sober  historical 
criticism  ”  (pp.  15,  16).  Dr.  Schenkel  appeals  to  the  thoroughly 
rationalistic  maxim,  “  that  we  must  keep  not  to  the  shell  but 
to  the  kernel  of  the  gospel  history and  he  lays  stress  on  the 
absence  of  “  an  undisturbed  power  of  perception,  in  the  case 
even  of  the  most  immediate  witnesses,”  who  for  that  reason 
could  not  form  a  correct  judgment  (p.  105).  Here  we  have 
the  same  distinction  between  facts  and  opinions  as  in  the  case 
of  the  rationalists.  The  only  difference  between  them  and 
Schenkel  is,  that  the  latter  finds  far  more  of  legend  in  the 
miracles.  For  “  the  picture  of  the  Eedeemer’s  life,  soon  after 
His  earthly  departure,  was  surrounded  by  a  rich  stream  of 
legends  ”  (p.  16). 

Dr.  Schenkel  is  thus  possessed  of  two  means  to  get  rid  of 
the  supernatural :  the  enthusiastic,  exaggerating  fancy  of  the 
disciples,  and  the  legendary  element.  True,  he  himself  speaks 
of  a  miraculous  gift  possessed  by  Christ,  but  only  in  the 
sense  of  a  specially  “intensified  gift  of  human  nature.”  For 
“  if  we  were  to  consider  the  miraculous  gift  of  Christ  as  the 
result  of  indwelling  omnipotence,  or  as  the  shining  forth  of 
His  divine  nature,  we  should  no  longer  be  able  to  apply  any 
human  standards  to  His  operation”  (p.  48).  As  if  miracle- 
workers  before  the  time  of  Jesus  had,  as  such,  ceased  to  be 
men  !  But  Schenkel’s  picture  of  Christ  must  not  at  any  price 
exceed  the  limits  of  the  purely  natural. 

“  During  His  retirement  in  the  desert,  Jesus  began  to  feel 
within  Flimself  the  workings  of  that  mysterious  power  which 
we  must  believe  to  be  the  source  of  His  miracles”  (p.  39). 
And  in  what  did  it  consist  ?  Jesus  had  the  “  psychical  power 
of  calming  troubled  souls.”  His  assurance,  e.g.,  of  the  forgive¬ 
ness  of  sins,  could  thrill  through  the  soul  like  an  electric 
current,  and  communicate  itself  to  the  paralysed  nerves  of  the 
sick  man,  thus  producing  bodily  effects  (p.  57).  This  was  the 
case  with  the  palsied  man  in  Mark  ii.  1-12.  If  so,  however, 
why  did  not  the  sick  man  spring  up  immediately  after  the 
assnrance,  “  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee,”  instead  of  waiting  to 


364  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT.  VI. 

hear  the  words,  “  Else  up  and  take  thy  bed,”  etc.  ?  In  the 
synagogue  at  Capernaum  (Mark  i.  21  et  s.),  Christ  merely 
quieted  the  convulsive  fit  of  a  highly  excited  madman 
(48,  49) — who,  however,  according  to  ver.  26,  is  most  of  all 
convulsed  by  the  first  words  of  the  Saviour.  Other  sick  people 
were  cured  “  in  consequence  of  undergoing  spiritual  suspense, 
and  through  passing  incitements”  (p.  89).  The  healing  of 
the  woman  with  an  issue  of  blood  is  effected  by  “  religious 
excitement  in  her  soul”  (p.  82),  though  the  evangelist  tells  us 
that  she  was  healed  hefo7'e  Jesus  turned  round  and  spoke  to 
her  (Mark  v.  30).  In  the  case  of  the  centurion’s  servant, 
“  the  chief  cause  of  his  recoveiy  was  the  extraordinary  spiritual 
excitement  of  the  sick  man,  and  his  invincible  faith  in  the 
healing  power  of  Christ  ”  (p.  74)  :  yet  the  passage  in  question 
says  not  a  word  about  the  faith  of  the  servant,  but  only  about 
that  of  the  centurion  !  Those  who  were  sick  of  fever,  Jesus 
quieted  by  a  “  loving  grasp  of  the  hand,  probably  accompanied 
by  comforting  and  refreshing  assurances  ”  (p.  49).  The  leper 
“  was  probably  cured  in  the  main  before  he  came  to  Christ  ” 
(p.  53)! 

The  miraculous  power  of  Christ  did  not  extend  beyond  (at 
best  doubtful)  results  of  this  kind. 

Are  these  not  tlie  old  worn-out  paths  and  threadbare  arts 
of  natural  explanation  ?  is  not  this  the  same  old  rationalistic 
caprice  which  clips  and  pares  the  historical  matter,  till  it 
no  longer  belies  the  axiom  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a 
miracle?  According  to  Isaiah  (iv,  6),  Christ’s  name  is  “Won¬ 
derful  according  to  Messrs.  Schenkel  &  Co.,  “  an  entirely 
natural  man.”  And  yet  this  same  Dr.  Schenkel  some  twelve 
years  since  most  truly  remarked,  “  Few  men  only  are  wise 
enough  to  perceive  that  much  more  intellect  is  necessary  to 
the  believing  of  a  miracle  than  cleverness  to  its  denial !  ” 

Yet  we  may  find  even  in  the  “  historical  ”  remains  left  us 
by  this  violent  exegesis  enough  to  shatter  the  natural  explana¬ 
tion  of  these  incidents.  When,  e.g.,  we  read  that  the  inhabi¬ 
tants  of  Capernaum  bring  all  their  sick  folk  to  Jesus  (p.  49),  w'e 
should  like  Dr.  Schenkel  to  explain  how  it  was  that  the  people 
cx-pected  this  Eabbi,  on  His  di'st  appearance,  to  heal  the  sick  ? 
Surely  more  must  have  happened  than  merely  the  quieting  of 
a  woman  sick  of  fever,  for  the  people  to  think  Him  a  man  of 


LECT.  VL] 


SCHENKEL’S  "  SKETCH.” 


365 


miracles  who  would  heal  all  their  sick.  Indeed  we  may  put 
the  question  in  a  general  form  :  If  no  miracles  ever  tooh  'place, 
how  came  the  people  constantly  to  expect  them  ?  Schenkel, 
Strauss,  and  Renan  all  confess  that  that  generation  did  expect 
them  ;  indeed  they  employ  this  fact  in  support  of  their  nega¬ 
tion  of  the  miraculous,  arguing  that  the  miracle-seeking  pro¬ 
pensities  of  that  age  were  the  chief  source  of  miraculous 
narratives.^  In  the  last  resort  this  weapon  may  be  used 
against  our  adversaries.  It  is  perfectly  true  that  an  inordinate 
craving  for  the  miraculous  may  invent  miracles ;  and  that 
later  on  it  did  so,  is  sufficiently  proved  by  the  apocryphal 
Gospels.  But  just  as  in  later  ages  a  “miracle-mania”  created 
false  miracles,  so  in  the  first  instance  real  and  true  miracles 
created  the  miracle-mania  of  later  times.  It  would  never  have 
occurred  to  men  to  coin  false  money,  if  there  had  not  first 
been  real  money  (cf.  p.  112)  !  Hoio,  we  ask,  did  manlcind  eves' 
arrive  at  the  conception  of  a  miracle,  if  not  through  witnessing 
worldngs  of  the  Divine  Omnipotence,  which  w^ere  utterly  beyond 
the  reach  of  human  comprehension  ?  We  are  still  waiting  for 
an  answer  to  this  question  from  the  -critics  who  deny  the 
miraculous. 

Hitherto  we  have  been  considering  Dr.  Schenkel’s  treatment 
of  the  first  class  of  miracles — those  of  healing.  The  second 
class,  our  Saviour’s  ivo'rhs  of  omnipotence,  are  disposed  of  either 
by  similar  violence,  or  else  by  their  transposition  into  the 
realm  of  fable.  The  feeding  of  five  thousand  in  the  wilder- 
ness  dwindles  down  to  the  fact  that  Christ  satisfied  them 
“  with  the  heavenly  bread  of  life,”  by  “  reverently  consecrating 
the  provisions  which  they  had  brought  with  them,  or  which 
tliey  hastily  procured  in  the  neighbourhood,”  and  then  dis¬ 
tributing  them  through  His  disciples  (p.  86).  The  daughter 
of  Jairus  was  still  alive  ;  for  Christ  Himself  says,  “  She  is  not 
dead,  but  sleepeth.”  The  narrative  of  the  transfiguration 
“  underwent  a.  legendary  transformation  in  the  subsequent 
tradition”  (p.  105).  In  like  manner  the  legends  of  both  the 
miracles  on  the  lake  arose  from  the  simple  fact,  that  during  a 
storm  Christ  exhibited  greater  courage  than  frightened  though 
experienced  mariners,  notwithstanding  the  despair  of  the  helms- 

^  ^Ye  shall  see,  howeter,  in  our  consideration  of  Strauss’  work,  that  the  Jewish 
nation,  as  such,  hy  no  means  had  a  proclivity  for  the  miraculous. 


366  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST,  [LECT.  VI. 

man,  and  that  He  thereby  inspirited  all  surrounders.  This 
Dr.  Schenkel  considers  to  be  “  much  grander  and  more  stir¬ 
ring”  than  the  quieting  of  the  storm  as  related  by  tlie 
evangelists  (pp.  79,  80)  !  On  the  other  occasion  Jesus  walked 
in  the  dark  of  night,  not  on  the  water,  but  “  along  the  shore,” 
and  this  appeared  to  the  disciples  like  a  threatening  appari¬ 
tion  (p.  88).  The  raising  of  Lazarus  is  a  myth  which  perhaps 
originated  from  the  parable  of  Lazarus  the  beggar  (p.  277). 
The  later  legends  in  general  were  not  satisfied  with  the  un¬ 
adorned  simplicity  of  the  original  narratives.  The  additions 
made  by  them  give  us  many  an  instructive  insight  into  the 
formation  of  miraculous  narratives  (p.  208).  So,  e.g.,  with  the 
bloody  sweat  in  Gethsemane,  which  is  “an  unmistakeable 
exaggeration.”  ^ 

Thus  Dr.  Schenkel,-  in  contradistinction  to  the  former 
attempts  to  explain  away  tlie  miracles  of  Christ,  which  were 
either  simply  rationalistic  or  purely  mythical,  combines  all 
methods — the  natural,  the  mythical,  the  allegorical,  the  prosaic 
or  sentimental  rationalistic — to  suit  his  own  convenience.* 
Just  as  much  violence  is  done  to  the  discourses  of  Christ  when 
they  do  not  fit  into  Schenkel’s  portrait  of  Him,  even  though 
they  may  occur  in  the  Gospel  by  St.  IMark.  Thus  it  is  with 
the  prophecies  of  Christ  in  regard  to  His  second  coming.  These 
were  all  meant  by  Jesus  to  be  taken  impersonally ;  but  the 
misapprehension  of  a  later  age  converted  them  into  predictions 
of  a  personal  advent  (p.  104).  If  we  ask  how  such  a  mis¬ 
understanding  was  possible,  we  are  told  that  Jesus  spoke 
figuratively,  because  His  disciples  could  not  yet  raise  their 
minds  to  the  idea  of  an  impersonal  advent ;  and  these  figures 
of  speech  originated  the  idea  that  Christ  would  appear  again 
personally  (p.  184  et  s.).  The  mere  inner  grounds  against 
such  a  view  show  it  to  be  utterly  impossible  that  Christ 
should  have  predicted  of  Himself  a  personal  and  corporal 
second  advent  in  the  splendour  of  heavenly  glory,  and  accom¬ 
panied  by  the  angelic  hosts  for  the  purpose  of  erecting  an 
earthly  kingdom.  He  who  came  to  found  a  spiritual  kingdom 
of  truth,  justice,  and  love,  could  not  possibly  have  designated 

'  The  possibility  of  the  formation  of  niytlis  will  be  more  closely  examined  in 
the  con.sideration  of  kStianss’  book. 

^  Cf.  in  Lecture  Vll.  his  theory  as  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 


LECT.  VI.] 


SCIIENKEL’S  “  SKETCH.” 


8G7 


outward  splendour,  earthly  power,  and  dazzling  glory  as  the 
last  aim  of  it  (p.  104).  We  ask  in  amazement :  Has  the  idea 
never  dawned  upon  Dr.  Schenkel  that  “  corporality  is  the  end 
of  God’s  ways,”  and  must  be  so  ?  Does  he  not  see  that  the 
kingdom  of  truth  and  justice,  which  in  this  world  is  being 
built  up  invisibly  and  in  quiet  concealment,  must,  in  order  to 
celebrate  its  full  triumph,  one  day  appear  visibly;  and  that 
therefore  Christ  might  point  out  both  aspects  of  His  kingdom 
— its  present  inward  nature,  and  its  future  outward  and  visible 
incorporation  ?  The  deeper  reason  why  Dr.  Schenkel  will  not 
acknowledge  these  discourses  as  genuine,  is  simply  his  aversion 
to  confess  the  Godhead  of  Him  wdio  is  King  of  lieaven  and 
earth,  and  the  future  J udge  of  the  world ;  who,  therefore,  in 
these  discourses  places  His  person  far  above  all  merely  natural 
humanity. 

The  clearest  view  of  the  insufficiency  and  futility  of  this 
whole  attempt  to  explain  the  life  and  person  of  Christ  will 
accrue  if  we  consider,  its  central  point,  and  ask  for  an  answer 
to  the  question,  how  the  man  Jesus  arrived  at  His  Messianic 
consciousness  ?  According  to  Schenkel,  this  came  on  Him 
gradually  against  His  wull,  and  indeed,  in  the  first  instance, 
against  His  better  knovdedge.  We  have  already  heard 
Schenkel  tell  us  that  J esus  was  “  not  yet  fully  clear  ”  as  to 
His  Kedeemer’s  vocation  on  the  occasion  of  His  first  public 
appearance  at  Kazareth.  Even  at  the  time  that  He  preached 
in  Kazareth  (Luke  iv.  16  et  s.)  He  “was  not  convinced  that, 
as  a  ‘  prophet  ’  in  a  new  and  higher  sense.  He  was  to  be  the 
fulfiller  of  the  still  imperfect  Old  Testament  prophecies  of  the 
Messiah”  (pp.  14,  40,  et  s.).  “  Still  imperfect  ?  ”  Yes;  be¬ 

cause  they  aimed  only  at  a  restoration  of  Israel’s  ancient 
power  and  dominion,  and  at  the  extension  of  an  outward 
theocracy  over  the  whole  earth,  and  that  not  only  according 
to  the  then  condition  of  Messianic  expectations,  but  also 
according  to  the  true  meaning  of  the  prophetical  writings 
themselves  (?).  For  this  reason  Christ  was  at  first  “  unwilling 
to  undertake  the  task  assigned  to  the  Messiah  by  the  prophets  ” 
(p.  97).  He  only  wished  to  become  the  Saviour  of  His  nation 
— the  founder  of  a  new  God-fearing  community.  But  how  if 
the  nation  expected  its  salvation  and  regeneration  from  none 
else  than  the  Messiah  ?  In  this  case  He  could  not  attain 


368  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT.  VI. 

His  ends  witliout  laying  claim  to  the  Messiahship.  He  there¬ 
fore  “  assumed  the  title  and  dignity  of  Messiah  only  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  an  unavoidable  accommodation  to  the  ideas  and 
expectations  of  His  contemporaries  and  co-patriots”  (p.  199), 
because  this  was  “the  only  means  to  attain  the  object  of  His 
vocation.”  And  so  when  Peter  had,  to  the  surprise  of  Christ 
Himself,  uttered  the  decisive  “  watchword,”  He  could  no 
longer  help  Himself,  but  was  obliged  to  “  permit  ”  the  applica¬ 
tion  of  Messianic  ideas  to  His  work  and  person. 

But  how  could  He  in  this  case  assume  to  be  the  Fulfiller 
of  the  Messianic  prophecies,  if  they  represented  the  Messiah 
as  acting  quite  differently  to  what  He  had,  according  to  His 
better  knowledge,  resolved  to  do  ?  “  He  probably  looked  on 

these  promises  as  a  series  of  figurative  representations  of  the 
future,  which  were  indispensable  to  a  spiritually  backward 
nation,  and  served  the  purpose  of  a  bridge  leading  in  later 
times  to  a  purer  and  deeper  comprehension  of  God’s  self¬ 
revelation  to  man”  (p.  98).  So  Christ  endeavoured  to  purify 
the  Messianic  prophecies  from  the  spurious  elements  contained 
in  them,  and  thus  to  fulfil  their  true  substance.  Only  from 
this  point  of  view  could  He  suffer  them  to  be  applied  to  His 
person.  True,  He  must  not  “for  a  moment  conceal  from 
Himself,  that  every  appeal  to  Old  Testament  passages  would 
be  open  to  the  gravest  misunderstandings  and  wrong  inter¬ 
pretations  ”  {ibid).  But  not  only  in  this  respect  did  Christ 
put  another  interpretation  on  the  Messianic  prophecies  ;  for 
He  soon  became  aware  of  the  necessity  that  He  should  become 
a  suffering  Messiah,  “  an  idea  which  to  the  Jews  was  self¬ 
contradictory,  and  unknown  to  the  Old  Testament  ”  (notwith¬ 
standing  Isaiah  liii.  ?).  This  converted  the  difference  between 
His  purer  idea  of  the  Messiah  and  the  expectations  of  His 
nation  into  a  positive  contradiction.  Dr.  Schenkel  is  forced 
to  confess  that  “  the  fulfilment  of  the  Old  Testament  in  His 
person,  was  the  non-fulfilment  of  all  theocratic  expectations. 
There  was  no  longer  anything  in  common  between  the  hopes 
of  His  fellow-countrymen  and  His  own  conviction”  (pp.  101, 
102). 

Here  once  more  we  ask  in  amazement :  To  whose  Messianic 
ideas  did  Christ  “  accommodate  ”  Himself  ?  Clearly  neither  to 
those  of  the  old  prophets  nor  to  those  of  the  people.  And 


LECT.  YL] 


SCIIENKEL’s  “  SKETCH.” 


369 


what  would  be  the  object  of  allowing  the  people  to  apply  to 
Him  the  title  of  Messiah,  if  He  did  not  fulfil  their  expecta¬ 
tions  ?  How  could  Christ  conscientiously  accept  a  title  which 
to  His  own  mind  conveyed  a  meaning  precisely  opposed  to 
that  which  the  people  attached  to  it, — a  title  which  was  not 
the  substance  formerly  concealed  by  spurious  wrappings,  but 
simply  the  deceptive  veil  of  a  new  idea,  used  by  Him  in  order 
to  secure  more  easy  access  to  the  affections  of  the  people  ?  If 
Jesus  ought  not,  on  account  of  false  Messianic  expectations, 
to  have  appealed  to  the  Old  Testament  with  its  imperfect 
promises,  how  is  it  that  He  constantly  does  so,  and  represents 
Himself  as  the  Fulfiller  of  the  old  economy  ?  (Cl.  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  the  discourse  at  Hazareth,  etc.)  Were  this 
the  case,  Christ  would  have  been  gnilty  of  an  apparent  acqui¬ 
escence  in  the  Old  Testament,  while  neo-lectinq  to  fulfil  its 
most  important  part,  and  secretly  transmuting  it  into  some¬ 
thing  entirely  different.  And  would  not  this  have  betrayed 
a  want  of  sincerity  ?  or  would  not  a  serious  lack  of  clearness, 
firmness,  and  consistency  be  evident  from  the  original  reluc- 
tancy  to  become  the  hlessiah,  followed  so  soon  by  the  resolu¬ 
tion  to  claim  this  office  ?  If  Christ  from  the  time  of  His 
baptism  and  His  sojourn  in  the  wilderness  clearly  saw  that 
there  was  no  way  open  to  Him  other  than  “  an  inner  rupture 
with  the  theocracy,  and  a  preparation  to  fight  for  life  or  death,” 
why  could  He  not  from  the  very  beginning  recognise  that  He 
must  needs  take  up  a  definite  position  as  against  the  current 
ideas  about  Messiah  ?  Why  should  Peter  have  been  the  first 
to  give  Him  a  clear  view  as  to  His  future  course  ?  How 
piteously  dependent  on  His  disciple  does  the  Master  thus 
appear,  though  Schenkel  says,  with  truth,  that  “Jesus  grew 
rather  from  within  than*  from  withPut !  ”  And  yet,  on  the 
other  hand,  how  blind  are  these  disciples  !  They  stamp  their 
blaster  as  the  Me.ssiah,  but  they  do  not  see  that  the  fulfilment 
of  the  Old  Testament  in  His  person  was  “  the  non-fulfilment 
of  all  theocratic  hopes,”  and  continue  to  cleave  to  them  with 
their  whole  soul  (Acts  i.  8). 

We  see  from  these,  and  many  other  questions  and  contra¬ 
dictions,  how  ill  Dr.  Schenhel  has  succeeded  in  sohing  the  eniguia 
of  Christ's  Messianic  consciousness.  Instead  of  bringing  light  into 
the  question,  he  has  confused  it  on  all  hands.  With  unbounded 


370  MODEIJN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lEOT.  VI. 

caprice  he  treats  the  prophecies  of  the  old  Testament  as  in¬ 
tended  to  be  fulfilled,  but  as  incapable  of  fulfilment  on  account 
of  their  imperfection.  He  places  Christ  in  a  thoroughly  false 
position  as  regards  both  the  ancient  prophets.  His  nation,  and 
His  disciples  ;  thus  heaping  up  one  exegetical,  psychological,  or 
historical  riddle  on  another.  But  this  always  will  and  must  be 
the  case  when  men  will  not  listen  to  the  plain  voice  of  Scripture. 

Of  a  truth,  no  !  The  Messianic  consciousness  of  Christ  was 
not  gradually  developed  amid  constant  fluctuations.  It  was 
not  after  half  His  career  was  past  that  He  at  length  forced 
Himself  to  appear  as  the  Messiah  under  the  pressure  of  out¬ 
ward  circumstances  and  human  ideas.  From  the  rcry  beginning 
of  His  public  ministry  He  hnnv  that  He  was  the  Messiah,  and 
that  from  His  own  deepest  convictions,  wliich  long  preceded 
any  confession  by  the  disciples.  All  the  Gospels  clearly 
testify  to  this.  They  tell  us  that  the  Messianic  consciousness 
of  Christ,  of  which  there  was  a  presentiment  in  the  lad  of 
twelve,  who  lived  in  such  close  communion  with  His  Bather, 
broke  forth  at  the  baptism  in  Jordan.  What  a  series  of  testi¬ 
monies  in  word  and  deed  to  tliis  effect  do  we  find  long  before 
the  confession  of  Peter  !  *  The  history  of  the  temptation  ;  the 
first  sermon  in  Nazareth,  representing  the  Messianic  passage 
(Isa.  Ixi.  1)  as  fulfilled  in  Himself  ;  His  first  miracle  in  Caper¬ 
naum,  where  the  demon,  without  any  contradiction  on  His 
part,  declares  Him  to  be  the  Holy  One  of  God;  the  first 
adoration  on  the  part  of  the  disciples  (John  i.  45),  who  rejoice 
that  they  have  found  the  IMessiah  ;  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
in  wdiich  He  lays  claim  to  be  the  Fulfiller  of  the  law  and  the 
prophets  (Matt.  v.  17),  and  attributes  to  Himself  the  power  of 
excluding  from  or  admitting  into  the  Messianic  kingdom  (vii. 
21-23);  the  question  of  the  Baptist,  “Art  Tiiou  He  that 
should  come  ?  aye,  even  the  designations,  “  Son  of  man  ”  and 
“  Bridegroom,”  wliich  the  most  recent  investigations  have 
proved  to  have  a  IMessianic  import;  the  series  of  parables  in 
which  He  represents  the  kingdom  of  God  as  come  through 
Him  ; — are  not  all  these  direct  proofs  of  His  distinct  Messianic 
consciousness  ?  We  can  very  well  understand  why,  for  self- 
evident  educational  purposes,  our  Saviour  endeavoured  to  rouse 
.  the  faith  of  the  people  by  His  doings  and  sayings,  instead  of 
at  once  declaring,  “  I  am  the  Messiah.”  The  confession  of 


LECT.  VI.] 


SCIIENKEL’S  "  SKETCH.” 


371 


Peter  is  pleasing  to  Him, — not  so  mncli  because  it  contains  tlie 
acknowledgment  of  His  Messiahship,  as  because  it  show's  that 
the  same  “  hard  sayings  ”  which  had  oifended  the  mass  of  the 
people  had  only  produced  a  firmer  faith,  and  one  born  from 
inward  experience,  in  the  hearts  of  His  disciples.  This  is 
clearly  shown  by  John  vi.  66-69. 

Even  Keim,  in  his  History  of  Jesus  of  Nazara,  acknow¬ 
ledges  that  He  was  “  convinced  of  His  Messianic  vocation  from 
His  very  first  public  appearance ;  ”  and  in  the  face  of  this 
strong  conviction,  as  well  as  of  many  other  facts,  he  is  “  forced 
decidedly  to  reject  the  theories  of  Strauss  and  Schenkel,  who 
hold  that  the  Messianic  idea  was  not  formed  until  later  on.”  ^ 
It  should  never  be  forgotten  “  that  thirty  years  of  tranquil 
development  preceded  this  ministry  of  scarce  three  years,  and 
that  He  wdio  made  His  appearance  so  late,  and  yet  so  decidedly, 
must  have  formed  a  clear  opinion  as  to  Himself  and  His  work; 
and  finally,  let  all  objectors  remember,  that  no  transitional 
turning-point  in  the  life  of  Christ,  no  breaking  forth  of  His  Mes¬ 
sianic  consciousness,  such  as  the  Gospels  describe  at  the  opening 
of  His  ministry,  can  be  either  pointed  out  or  imagined  later  on.”' 

Another  defect,  extending  not  only  to  this  portion,  but  to 
the  whole  of  Dr.  Schenkel’s  Sketch,  is  the  mania,  which  of  late 
years  has  become  perfectly  morbid,  for  discovering  signs  of 
development  in  the  character  of  Christ.  We  have  already  seen 
how  this  tendency  sacrifices  the  Godhead  of  our  Lord  to  His 
manhood,  and  misinterprets  or  rejects  as  spurious  all  the  pas¬ 
sages  which  testify  to  the  former.  True,  if  we  accept  the  false 
axiom  on  w'hich  these  attempts  are  based,  there  is  something 
justifiable  in  them.  Every  real  man  must  develope ;  and  we 
confess  the  true  .manhood  of  Christ,  as  the  Church  in  all  ages 
has  done,  though  it  may  not  always  have  had  its  due  rights 
conceded.  .But  the  question  is,  during  wdiich  period  did  this 

*  Keim,  GescMchte  Jesu  von  Nazara,  vol.  i.  pp.  453,  454.  He  goes  on  to 
jemaik,  “At  first,  it  is  true,  Jesus  concealed  this  dignity,  and  did  not  make 
use  of  the  terms,  ‘Messiah,’  ‘  Clirist,’  or  ‘Son  of  God,’  until  a  later  period. 
Still  there  can  he  no  doubt  that  from  the  very  beginning  lie  laid  claim  to  the 
highest  authority.  In  His  opening  discourses  He  proclaims  His  Messiahship  in 
terms  more  or  less  distinct ;  but  apart  from  these,  all  the  Gospels  agree  that 
during  the  first  period  of  His  ministry  He  bore  the  title  of  the  ‘  Son  of  man,' 
which  was  confessedly  and  indubitably  indicative  of  the  Messianic  dignity.” 

*  Cf.  Beyschlag,  Die  Christologie  des  neuen  Testaments,  p.  37. 


372  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [LECT.  VL 

inner  (Ieveloi')raent  of  Christ  take  place  ?  The  anti-miraculous 
accounts  of  His  life  invariably  date  it  too  late,  since  they  sup¬ 
pose  it  to  result  from  the  appearance  of  John  the  Baptist  and 
the  religious  excitement  thereby  produced.  The  religious 
development  of  our  Lord  did  not  begin  so  late  as  this,  for  we 
find  traces  of  it  even  in  the  child  J esus ;  and  when  the 
religious  excitement  broke  out  amongst  His  people,  the  pur¬ 
poses  of  Christ  were  nearly  matured.  In  other  words.  His 
inner  develojwient  essentially  took  'place,  not  during  the  period 
of  His  yiiblic  ministry,  hut  during  the  quiet  of  the  preceding 
thirty  years.  Whoever  will  consider  the  beginnings  of  Christ’s 
ministry,  as  related  in  the  Gospels,  with  an  unbiassed  mind, 
will  at  once  be  struck  with  the  admirable  certainty  and  firm¬ 
ness  of  His  conduct,  and  will  receive  the  impression  that  the 
new  Prophet  was  perfectly  clear  as  to  His  redemptory  vocation, 
and  His  entire  relation  to  the  past,  present,  and  future  of  Israel, 
the  world,  and  the  kingdom  of  God.  Do  not  the  purity,  truth, 
and  holy  chastity  of  His  intellect  and  Avill,  which  shine  with 
such  overpowering  beauty  in  all  His  deeds  and  words, — do  not 
tiiese  demand  of  us  the  belief  that  He  never  could  have  presented 
Himself  to  His  own  nation  and  to  all  mankind  as  their  Ee- 
deemer,  before,  in  virtue  of  His  constant  communion  with  God, 
becoming  perfectly  certain  that  “  the  fulness  of  time  was  come  ”  ? 
After  this  epoch,  wm  must  contemplate  His  life  not  so  much 
under  the  aspect  of  inward  development  (though,  of  course,  this 
is  not  to  be  excluded^),  as  under  that  of  a  moral  testing  of  what 
He  had  inwardly  attained  by  means  of  a  struggle  with  the 
world  and  obedience  to  His  heavenly  Father  even  unto  death. 
In  the  main,  it  is  not  Christ  but  His  contemporaries  who  de- 
velope.  As  He  offers  them  the  fruits  of  His  mature  spiritual 
growth  in  word  and  deed,  so  they  are  forced  to  take  up  a  more 
and  more  decided  position  towards  this  new  divine  Eevelation; 
and  this  necessitates  a  corresponding  behaviour  on  His  part. 

Apart  from  His  Messianic  consciousness,  it  is  not  easy  to 
give  proofs  of  development  in  Christ  analogous  to  that  of 
ordinary  men  during  the  time  of  His  public  ministry,  Sup- 

'  Cf.,  e.rj.,  Luke  i.\.  31  with  xii.  59.  Still  there  are  distinct  traces  of  a  recog¬ 
nition  that  it  was  needful  for  Him  to  sufier  even  during  the  earliest  period  of 
His  iTiinistry.  Cf.  Luke  i.x.  22,  Matt.  x.  16-25,  v.  10,  11,  Luke  vii.  22  fi’.,  and 
ii.  34,  35. 


LECT.  VI.] 


SCIIENKEL’s  “  SKETCH.” 


o  I 


pose,  e.g.,  that  we  consider  Him  as  an  orator.  Even  the  most 
gifted  of  human  orators  gradually  attain  the  climax  of  their 
eloquence ;  but  so  soon  as  Christ  opens  His  lips,  we  hear  the 
lierfcct  Master  of  divine  speech.  Do  not  the  very  first  sentences 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  show  the  absolute  incomparable¬ 
ness  of  the  most  gracious  yet  most  thrilling  Preacher  ?  The 
same  is  the  case  with  His  actions,  from  the  outset  so  holy  and 

■  decided ;  with  His  look,  which  piercc-s  the  depth  of  the  heart ; 
with  His  ever  sure  and  correct  judgment ;  with  His  perfect 
wisdom  in  dealing  with  all  men,  combining  a  majesty  which 
must  command  respect  with  a  condescension  that  should  win 
the  hearts  of  all  men.^ 

This  mania  for  everywhere  pointing  out  development  in  the 
life  of  Christ,  is  often  rightly  punished  by  an  inability  to  dis¬ 
cover  any  true  development  whatever.  This  is  the  case  with 
SchenkeL  In  his  book  everything  turns  on  the  opposition 
to  the  “  orthodox  ”  Pharisees.  This  appears  to  be  the  main¬ 
spring  which  moves  the  drama  of  Christ’s  life,  and  brings  about 

s 

^  On  tlie  grounds  above  enumerated,  we  take  exception  to  the  above-quoted 
work  of  Keim’s,  Geschichte  Jesu  von  Nazara  (as  well  as  to  his  previously  published 
lectui’cs  on  “the  human  development  of  Christ,”  “the  historical  dignity  of 
Christ,”  and  “the  historical  Christ”),  because,  in  the  constant  endeavour  to 
attain  a  historical  comprehension  of  ev^erything,  he  leaves  no  room  for  the 
divinity  of  our  Savioiir.  This  book  far  excels  the  work  of  Schenkel  in  well- 
conceived  delineations,  in  scientific  value,  in  purity  of  language,  in  real  his¬ 
torical  perception,  and  especially  in  a  warm  respect  for  all  that  is  holy.  On 
account,  however,  of  its  being  written  for  the  theological  world,  and  not  for  the 
public  at  large,  we  have  not  taken  it  into  consideration  above.  Keim’s  earlier 
writings  we  cannot  reckon  directly  amongst  the  number  of  the  anti-miraculous 
accounts  of  the  life  of  Christ,  especially  as  he  emphatically  defends  the  bodily 
resurrection  of  our  Lord.  Still,  all  these  writings  are  closely  allied  to  the 
rationalistic  and  mythical  accounts ;  for  Keiin  considers  Christ  to  be  only  a  man, 
although  at  the  same  time  he  calls  Him  a  “mysteiy,”  and  acknowledges  that 
He  applied  to  Himself  “  overwhelming  names  and  titles,  before  which  all  human' 
categories  seem  to  sink  into  silence  ”  {Historical  Dignity,  pp.  26  and  29).  We 
would  just  devote  a  few  words  to  one  aspect  of  these  writings. 

According  to  Keim,  Jesus  “resolved”  to  he  the  Messiah.  “Amidst  conflicts 
and  struggles,  there  was  developed  the  wondrous  world-transforming,  primary 
thought  of  His  life,  to  l>e  the  Son  of  God,  and  as  such  the  Saviour  of  the  world. 
Yes,  this  was  the  deed  of  His  life,  to  ofler  Himself  to  the  world  as  the  true 
Messiah  sent  by  God ;  yea,  as  the  obedient  Son  of  God  Himself.  ”  “  The  greatest 
spiritual  acquisition  of  His  life  was  His  resolution  to  he  the  Messiah”  {Historical 
Christ,  3d  ecL  pp  27,  76,  et  s.  ;  cf.  Hist.  Dignity,  pp.  12  et  s.  ;  Jesu  von  Naz., 
pp.  543  et  s.).  Granted  the  premise  that  Jesus  was  a  mere  man,  there  is  no 
escaping  the  conclusion  tliat  His  Messiahship  was  a  free  inward  resolve,  whether 


MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [LECT.  VI, 


O  H  f 

o  I  4 

one  important  decision  after  anotlier.  But  according  to  Dr, 
Schenkel,  Christ  is  from  the  very  commencement  quite  decided 
as  to  His  beliaviour  towards  the  Pharisees ;  as  early  as  His  bap¬ 
tism,  He  sees  that  “  they  are  possessed  of  no  specific  for  the 
rcGreneration  of  their  nation.”  In  tlie  wilderness  He  sees  that 

o 

there  is  no  way  open  to  Him  but  to  “  declare  enmity  against 
the  Pharisees,  and  wmge  war  to  the  knife.”  He  “  purposely  ” 
makes  His  disciples  “  break  the  Sabbath.”  In  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  He  abjures  “all  connection  with  the  Jewish  hier¬ 
archy  and  theocracy,”  etc.  etc.  But  whence,  then,  is  any 
further  “  development  ”  to  proceed  ?  How  can  Schenkel  after¬ 
wards  say  that  “  now  the  breach  was  inevitable,”  that  Jesus 
was  now  “assuming  the  offensive,”  since  all  this  had  taken 
place  from  the  very  beginniny  t 

True,  there  is  one  sacrifice  by  means  of  which  we  may  pur¬ 
chase  a  purely  human  develojnnent  in  the  life  of  Christ, — we 
mean  the  surrender  of  His  sinlessness,  as  in  Henan’s  work. 
This,  however,  to  his  honour  be  it  said,  is  studiously  avoided 

it  resulted  from  “  the  process  of  a  lifetime”  {libi  sup.)  or  was  first  formed  at 
the  baptism  in  Jordan,  up  to  which  Jesus  “  had  bj^  no  means  attained  to  a  cer¬ 
tainty  as  to  His  vocation,  or  a  conviction  of  His  Messiahship  ”  {Jesu  von  Naz.y 
p.  543).  But  how  could  Christ,  if  He  were  a  mere  man,  present  Himself  to  the 
people  as  the  “God-sent,  true  Messiah;”  whereas  the  true  Messiah,  i.e.  He  who 
was  promised  in  the  Old  Testament,  was  to  be  no  mere  man,  but  “the  Branch o£ 
the  Lord,”  whose  “goings  out  are  from  everlasting  to  everlasting”?  We  have 
here  a  plain  dilemma.  Either  Jesus  loas  the  true  Messiah,  and  that  according 
to  the  preparation  and  fweknowledje  of  God,  in  which  case  11“  had  no  need  to 
'‘resolve”  to  he  so,  but  only  to  achiowkdge  and  fulfil  the  task  asst^ned  to  Hina 
by  God;  or  He  icas  nothing  of  the  kind,  in  which  case  no  resolve,  were  it  never  so 
heroic,  could  make  Him  MessicJi, — at  most  it  could  but  enable  Him  to  play  the 
part.  Is  it,  indeed,  in  any  way  possible  to  resol  re  to  be  one  thing  or  another? 
But  even  though  this  might  be  meant  in  the  sense  of  becoming  (or  voluntarily 
undertaking  the  office  of)  Messiah,  we  must  remember  that  such  a  “becoming” 
is,  according  to  Scripture,  only  possible  in  consequence  of  a  divinely-granted 
“  Being,”  i.e.  the  divine  Sonship,  which  cannot  be  dependent  on  the  good 
pleasure  of  a  man.  A  resolution  cannot  originate  a  now  existence  ;  it  can  only 
carry  out  the  work  belonging  to  that  existence.  Tine  it  is  that  the  whole  of 
Christ’s  work  for  our  redemption,  from  His  first  appearance  to  the  acceptance  of 
the  cup  of  suflering,  was  voluntary,  and  took  place  amid  unceasing  conflicts 
and  assaults.  Indeed,  we  believe  tliat  the  free  resolve  of  Christ  extended  still 
further  than  Keim  would  allow, — even  His  coming  into  the  world  w'as  subject 
to  it.  Thus  His  “resolution  to  be  the  Messiah”  was  made,  not  in  this  world, 
at  Jordan,  but  in  a  pre-existent  life.  But  when  He  had  once  appeared  in  the 
flesh,  it  no  longer  depended  upon  His  free  will  whether  to  be  the  Messiah  or 
not ;  He  could  not  act  otherwise,  according  to  the  necessity  of  His  nature.  As, 
in  the  actions  of  God,  liberty  and  necessity  coalesce  in  a  highe'.’  unity,  so,  too, 


LECT.  VI.] 


SCIIEXKEL’S  "  SKETCH." 


SV5 


by  Dr.  Sclienkel  as  far  as  may  be.  N’everthcless,  this  same 
mania  for  development  compels  even  him  every  now  and  then 
to  place  the  moral  dignity  of  Christ  in  a  dubious  light.  Accord¬ 
ingly,  in  such  passages  he  generally  speaks  witli  an  indecision 
and  vagueness  which  must  of  itself  arouse  suspicion.  He  does 
not  look  upon  the  baptism  of  Christ  as  His  Messianic  conse¬ 
cration,  but  as  a  ceremonial  purification.  Jesus  being  seized 
by  the  force  of  the  great  religious  and  moral  movement  of  the 
people,  “  places  Himself  in  their  ranks  ”  without  pride  or  self; 
righteousness,  but  yet  without  “  classing  Himself  amongst 
common  sinners”  (pp.  33,  35).  He  classed  Himself  “with 
the  better  portion  of  the  people.”  Thus  He  prayed  with  His 
disciples;  “  Forgive  us  our  debts”  (p.  29),  as  if  our  Lord  had 
not  put  this  prayer  into  the  mouths  of  His  disciples,  and  thus 
spoken,  placing  Himself  in  their  position  ;  “  After  this  manner, 
therefore,  pray  ye"  (Matt.  vi.  9) ;  “When  ye  pray,  say”  (Luke 
xi.  2).  Further,  Christ  allows  Himself  to  be  proclaimed  as  the 
iMessiah  for  the  sake  of  the  people,  and  in  order  to  attain  His 

iai  tlie  work  of  Chrifst  we  may  not  separate  Jmman  liberty  from  divine  necessity. 
Tlie  latter,  ami,  in  fact,  the  entire  divine  aspect  of  Christ's  redeeming  work  clearly 
does  not  receive  its  due  imioorlance,  if  we  accept  the  theory  of  a  re.solution  to  he 
Jlessiah  and  Son  of  God.”  However  delicate  may  he  the  historical  and  psycholo 
gical  anah’'sis  hy  means  of  which  Keim  seeks  to  explain  to  us  this  process,  and 
however  much  moral  praise  he  may  hestow  on  “  the  nohle  achievement  of  the 
Messianic  resolve”  {Hist.  Dign.  pp.  12  et.  s.),  nevertheless  his  whole  theory 
detracts  far  too  so’iously  from  the  divine  preparation  and  execution  of  the  redemp¬ 
tion.  Although  Keim  declares  that  divine  Providence  so  ordered  circumstance.s 
to  work  together  that  this  resolve  was  suggested  to  our  liOrd,  yet  surely  it  would 
never  have  hecn  consonant  with  the  almighty  rule  of  divine  love  and  mercy  to 
trust  the  most  important  turning-point  in  the  history  of  mankind  to  the  subjec¬ 
tive  decision  of  any  mere  human  being,  were  he  never  so  excellent.  Where  there 
is  a  world  to  he  renewed,  God  is  far  more  actively  j)resent  than  it  would  appear 
from  Keini’s  theory.  Keim  himself  seems  to  feel  this,  for  his  historical  con¬ 
science  compels  him  presently  to  confess  that  “  the  fibres  of  the  spiritual  process 
taking  place  in  the  Baptist  and  in  -Jesus  did  not  run  merely  through  the  circuit 
<»f  an  eartWy  consciousness  ;  they  were  connected  with  &  higher  world.  They 
‘'ould  not  have  dared  to  believe  what  they  did,  without  being  sure  of  the  divine 
will.  All  their  discourses,  especially  tliose  of  Jesus,  constantly  recur  to  this 
divine  Co'Uisellor  and  Helper.  Our  historical  conscience  forces  us  to  confess 
that  divine  dispensations  and  instructions  w'ere  introduced  into  the  world  on  the 
banks  of  Jordan,  and  that  the  influence  of  the  divine  government  must  have 
accompanied  the  greatest  deed  and  the  greatest  turning-point  in  the  history  of 
man  ”  {Jesu  von  Naz.,  p.  549).  If  Keim  would  but  trace  out  those  fibres,  con- 
necting  with  a  higher  world  One  “before  whom  all  human  categories  sink  into 
silence,”  surely  he  w'ould  see  in  Him,  no  longer  a  mere  man,  but  the  only* 
begotten  Son  of  God,  ^ 


376  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT,  VI. 

oliject.  What  shall  we  say  to  this  ?  If  Christ  really  were 
“  He  that  should  come/’  then  the  title  of  IMessiah  ought  not 
to  have  been  repugnant  to  His  feelings,  notwithstanding  any 
popular  fallacies  as  to  the  idea;  but  if  He  was  not  that  pro¬ 
mised  One,  it  was  wrong  in  Him  to  let  Himself  be  proclaimed 
as  such  without  a  standing  protest.  And  the  same  with  His 
healing  works.  If  they  were  not  miraculous,  and  yet  Christ 
saw  that  they  were  held  to  be  so,  He  ought  to  have  loudly 
witnessed  to  the  contrary ;  otherwise  His  sincerity  would  be 
open  to  suspicion. 

Furthermore,  Christ  was  liable  to  err;  He  made  a  mistake 
in  His  estimate  of  Judas,  although  this  mistake  proceeded 
from  the  purest  motives  (p.  194).  He  had  often  felt  the 
allurements  of  temptation,  and  was  well  acquainted  with  the 
sinful  inward  emotions  of  flesh  and  blood  (pp.  150,  207). 
For  “  only  a  man  who  has  to  struggle  with  anger  can  call  bun- 
self  ‘  meek/  and  only  a  man  who  has  been  tempted  by  pride 
can  call  himself  ‘  humble  ’  ”  (p.  122)  I  Therefore  He  rejected 
the  title  “  good”  when  applied  to  Himself,  and  this  rejection 
“  is  a  most  valid  testimony  to  His  deep  and  earnest  conviction 
that  He  was  not  in  any  way  entitled  to  this  attribute  ”  (pp. 
140-150).^  Keeping  in  mind  His  o\yn  natural  weakness.  He 
judged  the  moral  corruption  of  men  much  more  mildly  than 
does  the  dogmatic  theology  of  any  age ;  indeed  the  great  fail- 


’  This  passage,  so  fondly  quoted  by  all  deniers  of  the  Godhead  of  Christ,  is 
differently  given  in  the  first  Gospel  and  in  the  two  following.  In  Matt.  xi.x. 
16  ft.,  the  tvne  reading  is  not  “Good  Master,”  hut  simply  “Master;”  and 
further  on,  not  “Why  callest  thou  me  good?”  hut  “Why  askest  thou  me 
about  that  which  is  good  ?  none  is  good,  save  One,”  etc., — !.«.  God  is  the  only 
source  of  goodness  ;  and  if  thou  wilt  attain  to  Him  as  goodness  in  imity,  thou 
must  first  be  in  earnest  in  keeping  His  commandments  as  goodness  in  multipli¬ 
city.  This  passage,  therefore,  does  not  apply  to  the  person  of  Christ,  and 
cannot  be'  used  by  Sehenkel.  The  two  other  Synoptics,  however,  have  the 
reading  to  which  Sehenkel  appeals  (Mark  x.  17  et  s.  ;  Luke  xviii.  18  et  s.)  ;  still 
they  do  not  bear  out  his  views.  They  show,  in  the  first  place,  that  our  Lord 
wished  to  humble  the  questioner  who  used  the  word  “gowi”  so  lightly,  and 
who  had  too  high  an  opinion  of  himself,  by  reminding  him  ■>\hijt  time  goodness 
was.  Second,  we  see  that  Jesus,  who  was  still  being  made  “perfect  through 
sutferings”  (Heb.  ii.  10),  points  out  to  the  scribe  the  absolute  meaning  of  the 
predicate  “good,”  which  He  reserves  for  His  Father  only,  since  He  Himself  is 
still  in  the  midst  of  His  humiliation.  But  Christ  could  never  have  meant 
“that  He  was  not  in  any  way  entitled  to  this  attribute,”  else  how  could  Ho 
have  invited  one  who  ivas  inquiring  after  perfection  to  follow  ][im  ?  (Ver.  21.)  ■ 


LECT.  VI.] 


SCIIENKEL’S  “  SKETCH.” 


377 


ing  of  mankind  in  general.  He  found  to  be  merely  their  natural 
weakness  (208  et  s.). 

These  are  some  of  the  shadows  which  Dr.  Schenkel  cannot 
help  introducing  into  his  Sketch  of  Christ's  Character,  because 
the  denial  of  our  Saviour  s  Godhead  ever  inupels  men  to  deny 
His  sinlessness.  But  if  this  latter  be  denied,  or  only  made 
uncertain,  it  follows  of  necessity  that  the  moral  corruption 
of  mankind,  as  a  whole,  will  appear  in  a  more  favourable 
light  as  mere  “  natural  weakness.”  If  the  divine  dignity  of 
Christ  be  lost  sight  of,  our  own  human  nature  will  be  un¬ 
duly  exalted.  The  school  of  Arius  mostly  lies  hard  by  that 
of  Pelas[ius. 

But  how  can  one  who  no  longer  thoroughly  acknowledges 
the  sinlessness  of  Christ,  still  see  in  Him  the  “  Saviour  ”  and 
“  Redeemer  ”  ?  True,  Schenkel  remarks  that  those  who  hold 
his  views  are  perfectly  justified  in  calling  Jesus  the 
“  Eedeemer,”  because  He  “  released  mankind  from  the  errors 
of  Judaism  and  heathenism.”  Against  this  evasion  Strauss 
well  remarks :  “  When  was  a  man  ever  called  ‘  Eedeemer  ’ 
because  he  released  those  who  lived  wdth  and  after  him  from 
certain  errors  ?  This  expression  proceeds  from  the  idea  of  the 
sin-offering ;  it  could  never  have  resulted  from  Schenkel’s 
rationalistic  theory,  and  if  he  employs  it  notwithstanding, 
he  is  guilty  of  douhle-decding  in  the  use  of  xvords}  Most  true  ! 
If  Jesus  was  in  truth  the  Eedeemer,  He  could  only  be  so  in 
virtue  of  His  sacrifice  for  the  sin  of  humanity ;  but  this  He 
could  only  present  if  He  were  perfectly  sinless.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  we  consider  Schenkel’s  persistent,  though  futile, 
endeavour  to  represent  Christ  as  sinless,  the  question  at  once 
arises,  Hoio  could  He  he  sinless  if  He  were  a  mere  xnan Why 
should  absolutel}’’  no  one  else  have  been  so  ?  We  here  stand 

1  Die  Halhen  u.  die  Ganzen,  pp.  48,  49.  This  is  not  the  only  instance  in 
which  Sclienkel  has  done  so.  E.g.,  in  speaking  of  the  satisfaction  of  God’s 
justice  through  the  sacrifice  of  love,  he  says  that  reconciliation  with  God  con¬ 
sists  in  tlie  recognition  of  Ilis  forgiving  love,  ind  that  the  follower  of  Jesus 
shows  himself  to  be  worthy  of  this  love  by  jacrificing  himself  (pp.  88,  114,  198 
et  s.,  218  et  s. )  ;  and  again  (in  the  Allgemelne  Klrcld.  Zellsclirlft,  vol.  vi.,  part 
4,  p.  234),  that  Christ  “revealed  the  eternal  essence  of  the  Godhead,  Its  holy 
love,  by  means  of  the  greatest  sacrifice  recorded  in  history.”  Here  again,  under 
cover  of  the  term  “sacrifice,”  he  smuggles  in  i  conception  puite  foreign  to  that 
of  the  Scriptures, — a  conception  in  which  the.  central  truth  of  the  biblical  doctrine, 
the  vicarious  atonement  of  Christ,  is  tpiite  ignored. 


378  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  fcECT.  VI. 

before  the  simple,  incontrovertible  conclusion,  that  if  Jesus 
was  a  mere  man.  He  was  subjected  to  all  the  limitations  of 
human  nature  and  development,  and  by  universal  analogy 
could  not  have  been  sinless ;  if  He  was  not  sinless.  He  was 
not  fitted  to  be  the  Eedeemer  of  the  world  ;  if  He  was  not 
fitted  to  be  the  Eedeemer,  He  cannot  have  been  or  become 
such.  But  now,  if  He  was  not  the  Eedeemer,  in  the  name  of 
fairness,  let  our  opponents  be  open  and  honourable  enough  to 
drop  the  title  since  they  have  repudiated  the  true  idea,  instead 
of  continuing  to  adulterate  biblical  conceptions,  by  using  the 
same  words  while  substituting  an  utterly  different  meaning  ! 
The  same  remarks  apply  to  other  predicates  which  Schenkel 
in  his  Sketch  applies  to  Christ.  If  Jesus  was  a  mere  man, 
how  could  He  be  the  “  great  Pattern  ”  for  all  ages,  or  the 
“  Light  of  the  world  ”  ?  In  this  case,  however  prominent.  He 
could  not  be  more  than  one  amongst  others,  and  not  unique  for 
all  ages.  If  He  was  entirely  borne  along  by  the  curi'ent  of 
human  development.  He  might  “  still  mark  a  great  epoch  in 
our  history,  but  not  its  climax  and  culminating  point,”  ^  as 
Strauss  has  clearly  shown. 

Finally,  we  ask,  how  can  any  man  with  so  doubtful  a  view 
of  Christ’s  moral  dignity  give  us  any  conccjotion  of  His  unique 
religious  consciousness, — that  clear  unsullied  mirror  of  the  purest 
union  and  communion  with  God,  into  which  the  astonished 
world  has  been  gazing  for  eighteen  centuries,  but  never  with¬ 
out  feelinq  how  great  the  contrast  between  itself  and  Him  ? 
What  other  key  have  we  to  the  explanation  of  this  phenomenon, 
than  the  belief  that  in  Christ  there  lived  an  original  higher 
consciousness,  which  sprang  from  His  unique  relation  to  God, 
and  was  continually  strengthened  by  perfect  and  sinless 
obedience  to  His  Father  ? 

This  is  the  most  important  element  (to  speak  figuratively)  of 
that  sediment  lehich  no  critical  solution  of  the  life  of  Christ  has 
ever  yet  heen  ahle  to  dissolve,  and  ivhich  loill  hafle  all  such  efforts 
to  the  end  of  time.  The  fundamental  hypothesis  of  Schenkel’s 
whole  sketch — that  Jesus  was  a  mere  man — is  here  seen  to 
be  false,  because  it  wiU  not  suffice  to  explain  the  facts  of 
history  ;  above  all,  it  leaves  in  darkness  the  central  feature  of 
Christ’s  character.  His  peculiar  consciousness. 

*  Uhlhorn,  ubi  supra,  p.  58.  The  details  of  Strauss’  argument,  see  I'elow. 


LECT.  VI.]  STEAUSS’  “  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.”  379 

Before  closing  tliis  notice  of  Dr.  Sclienkel’s  work,  we  cannot 
help  alluding  to  one  feature  of  it,  which  is  particularly  re¬ 
pulsive, — we  mean  the  ultra-radical  'party  spirit  so  glaringly 
manifested  in  its  intemperate  language  and  in  its  whole 
tendency.  This  is  painfully  evident  to  the  German  reader  on 
nearly  every  page  ;  but  those  of  our  English  readers  who  wish 
to  verify  our  remarks,  we  would  refer  to  such  passages  as  pj). 
33,  41,  44,  58  et  s.,  76,  77,  92,  202,  234.  All  these  and 
many  others  give  this  book  the  character  of  a  violent  party 
attack  on  all  orthodox  Christian  belief  and  Church  govern¬ 
ment, — an  attack  which  invidiously  imports  descriptions  and 
even  epithets  of  ecclesiastical  phenomena  from  the  present 
day  into  tlie  history  of  the  past,  thus  taking  away  well-nigh 
all  its  value  as  a  historical  work.  We  cannot  wonder  that 
tliese  defects,  combined  with  its  undecided,  semi-rationalistic, 
semi-mythical  character,  have  procured  for  the  book  a  con¬ 
demnation  from  critics  of  well-nigh  all  shades ;  ^  and  we  may 
safely  predict,  that  ere  long  its  influence  will  have  died 
away. 

These  remarks  do  not  apply  to  the  book  which  it  is  now 
our  turn  to  consider, — a  book  which  is  to  a  considerable  extent 
the  pattern  of  Dr.  Schenkel’s  work,  but  which  greatly  excels 
it  in  strictness  of  logic  and  delicacy  of  delineation, — we  mean 
The  TAfe  of  Christ  by  Strauss.  The  name  of  David  Eried- 
rich  Strauss  brings  us  to  the  mythical  theory,  and,  as  this  is 
one  of  the  chief  defences  of  modern  scepticism,  we  must  devote 
a  little  more  time  to  it  than  to  the  others. 


III. - STRAUSS’  "LIFE  OF  CUEIST.” 

/ 

First  of  all,  let  us  see  what  ivas  the  oriyini  of  this  standpoint. 
Long  before  Strauss,  men  had  begun  to  compare  heathen 
mythologies  with  biblical  narratives,  and  to  conjecture  that 
there  might  be  some  truths  contained  in  the  mythological 
fables,  and  some  fables  in  the  biblical  history.  Schelling 
discovered  that  all  primitive  history,  proceeding  from  a  time 
when  writing  was  as  yet  unknown,  especially  if  it  contain 

*  Cf.  Luthardt,  Die  modernen  Darstellunjen  des  Lehens  Jem,  p.  46  ;  and 
Uhlhorn,  ubi  sup.,  p.  67. 


380 


MODEUX  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT.  VI. 


miraculous  elements,  must  be  a  myth,  i.e.  a  legend  or  fiction. 
It  was  especially  De  Wette  who  proceeded  to  apply  this 
principle  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  who  promulgated  the 
genera]  rule,  that  where  any  record  relates  inconceivable  things 
in  good  faith,  it  is  to  be  considered  not  as  historical,  but  as 
mythical.  Others  soon  began  by  the  light  of  this  maxim  to 
investigate  New  Testament  history,  impelled,  too,  by  newly- 
arisen  critical  doubts  as  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels. 
The  inward  motive  of  these  researches  was  the  rationalistic 
axiom  that  the  miraculous  is  impossible.  This  was  accom¬ 
panied  by  the  influence  of  recent  philosophy,  which  dissolved 
the  person  of  our  Lord  into  a  universal  principle,  and  evapo¬ 
rated  His  incarnation,  death,  and  resurrection  into  a  number  of 
universal,  eternal,  and  spiritual  truths.  Thus,  in  their  sub¬ 
jective  idealistic  view  of  the  world,  these  systems  calmly  sail 
awav  over  all  historical  testimonies,  and  regard  the  biblical 
history  as  a  sacred  mythology  sprung  from  active  religious 
fancy. 

This  is  the  view  represented  by  Grohmann,  who  wrote  in 
1799  on  “  Eevelation  and  Mythology.”  He  maintains  that 
the  ideas  current  amoii"  the  Jews  had  long  beforehand  settled 
what  Christ,  i.e.  the  Messiah,  was  to  do.  But  Jesus  Christ, 
as  a  historical  individual,  did  not  correspond  to  the  expecta¬ 
tions  of  the  Jews.  Not  even  that,  in  which  all  accounts 
agree,  is  a  matter  of  fact ;  the  people’s  contributions  formed 
a  popular  idea  of  His  life,  and  from  this  popular  idea  His 
history  was  made.  Here  we  have  the  xohole  theory  of  Strauss 
and  his  followers  enunciated  thirty-six  years  loefore  the  first 
edition  of  Strauss'  Life  of  Christ  a'ppeared. 

The  principle  of  these  critics  is,  that  the  Gospels  in  the  main 
consist  of  xinintentioncd  fictions  as  to  the  person  of  Christ,  pro¬ 
duced  hy  the  imagination  of  the  first  Christian  churches,  mostly 
in  accordance  with  former  Jewish  predictions  and  expectations 
of  the  Messiah.  Christ  Himself,  they  say,  gave  people  the 
impression  of  His  Messiahship  through  the  power  of  His  word 
and  spirit  only,  without  yielding  to  their  craving  for  miracles. 
And  thus  the  apostles  and  the  primitive  Church  regarded  and 
preached  Him.  It  was  not  until  His  life  lay  far  behind  them 
that  the  following  generations,  from  a  want  of  historical  icel- 
ing,  though  on  the  whole  in  good  faith,  began  involuntarily  to 


LECT.  VI.] 


STKAUSS’  “  LIFE  OF  CHPvIST.” 


S81 


form  legends,  relating  such  outward  wonders  as  were  expected 
of  Messiah,  and  to  apply  them  to  Christ.  These  legends  were 
received  without  suspicion  by  our  evangelists,  who  were  men 
of  the  second  century,  and  by  them  incorporated  in  the 
gospel  narrative. 

We  now  see  the  distinction  between  the  principle  of 
Rationalism  and  that  of  Mythicism.  The  former  left  a 
historical  remainder  after  eliminating  the  miraculous  element 
from  the  gospel  narratives.  This  remainder  is,  for  the  most 
part,  given  up  by  the  mythical  treatment,  and  the  Gospels  are 
considered  as  productions  of  the  religious  imagination,  clothing 
religious  ideas  in  a  quasi-historical,  though  really  legendary 
garb.  Of  course,  a  certain  amount  of  original  fact  is  conceded 
even  by  this  theory,  and  in  this  respect  there  is  only  a 
difference  of  degree  between  it  and  Rationalism,  since  its 
negations  go  a  step  further.  Both  agree  entirely  as  regards 
the  denial  of  the  miraculous.  But  the  mythical  theory  does 
not  labour  to  give  a  natural  explanation  of  the  miracles.  It 
acknowledges  that  no  straightforward  exposition  can  remove 
them  from  the  gospel  history,  because  the  New  Testament 
writers  themselves  believed  in  them ;  therefore  it  simply 
relegates  them  to  the  realm  of  legend ;  as  Strauss  ^  puts  it : 
“  We  leave  the  writers  in  undisturbed  enjoyment  of  their 
miracles ;  but  we  ourselves  regard  them  as  mere  myths.” 

The  first  edition  of  Strauss’  Life  of  Christ  appeared  in 
1835  in  2  vols.,  and  was  written  for  the  learned  world.  Its 
novelty  consisted  in  the  universal  application  of  the  mythical 
principle  to  the  whole  gospel  history,  and  not  merely  the 
miracles  of  Christ,  thus  giving  the  finishing  stroke  to  this 
theory  by  carrying  it  out  to  its  last  consequences. 

We  will  now  follow  Strauss  in  his  explanation  of  the  origin 
of  these  myths.  Without  further  inquiry,  he  states  that 
during  the  reigns  of  Augustus  and  Tiberias  certain  Messianic 
expectations  were  rife  amongst  the  people  of  Israel,  who 
imagined  that  their  Messiah  would  be  a  political  liberator,  and 
expected  Him  to  perform  still  greater  miracles  than  those 
related  in  the  Old  Testament.  And  what  happened  ?  In  the 
reign  of  Tiberias  there  appeared  an  ascetic  named  John,  who 
preached  repentance,  and  baptized  those  who  professed  it 
*  Lehen  Jesu,  edition  of  1864,  p.  146  ;  cf.  p.  23. 


382  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [LECT.  VI. 

(sec.  45).  Amongst  his  disciples  there  was  a  Galilean  Jew, 
named  Jesus,  who  was  baptized  amongst  the  rest  (sec.  49) ; 
and  when  John  had  been  put  into  prison,  this  man  continued 
and  developed  his  work.  He  conceived  the  idea  of  effecting 
a  moral  regeneration  of  the  people  by  means  of  his  teaching, 
and  hoped  for  a  supernatural  interference  on  the  part  of  God, 
by  means  of  which  the  old  kingdom  of  David  should  be  again 
restored  (i.  520).  This  perfectly  corresponded  to  the  long- 
cherished  Messianic  ideas  of  the  people  (p.  521),  and  thus  it 
occurred  to  his  followers,  that  he  himself  was  probably  the . 
Messiah.  At  first  he  was  alarmed  at  this  idea  (p.  497),  but 
he  gradually  raised  himself  to  believe  it  (p.  503).  The  hatred 
of  the  ruling  priestly  party,  however,  brought  him  to  the 
cross. 

This  is,  in  short,  the  liistorical  account  of  the  life  of  Christ, 
as  Straass  gives  it  in  his  book  of  1835.  This  was  the  nucleus 
which  was  gradually  encrusted  by  the  present  mass  of  legends 
and  fictions  in  the  following  manner.  After  the  first  shock  of 
Christ’s  death  had  passed  away,  the  disciples  felt  the  psycho- 
loQ-ical  need  of  reconciling  the  contradiction  between  the  last 
fate  of  their  master  and  their  former  Messianic  hopes.  On 
searching  in  the  Old  Testament,  they  found  many  passages 
wdiich  spoke  of  servants  of  God  who  were  tormented  to  death, 
and  these,  by  dint  of  their  bad  exegesis,  they  applied  to  the 
sufferings  of  Messiah.  Tims  the  belief  gained  ground  in  them, 
that  Jesus  was  fore-ordained  to  suffer  and  die  in  this  verij 
capacity  of  Messiah;  they  were  enabled  to  retain  their  former 
opinion  of  him,  and  “  the  shamefully  killed  Christ  was  not 
lost,  but  left  to  them”  (ii.  p.  638).  Christ,  according  to  their 
idea,  had  now  entered  into  his  gloiy.  “  But  how  could  he 
neglect  to  send  thence  a  message  to  his  followers  ?  How  well 
can  we  conceive  that  in  the  case  of  certain  individuals,  and 
especially  of  women,  these  feelings  should  have  been  subjectively 
excited  so  as  to  produce  real  visions  ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  in 
the  case  of  whole  assemblies,  that  some  visible  or  audible 
object,  perchance  the  aspect  of  an  unknoMui  person,  should 
produce  the  impression  of  an  appearance  of  Christ !  ”  Thus 
originated  the  legend  of  Christ’s  resurrection. 

This  was  the  impulse  for  the  formation  of  further  myths. 
Since  the  disciples  preached  that  Christ  had  risen  from  the. 


LECT.  VI.]  STRAUSS’  “LIFE  OF  CHRIST.”  383 

dead,  the  Jews  asked  whether  he  had  done  any  miracles,  as 
this  was  a  necessary  attribute  of  the  Messiah.  The  more  the 
disciples  became  convinced  of  this  necessity,  the  more  they 
made  themselves  believe  that  Jesus  must  have  performed 
miracles,  only  they  could  not  have  seen  them  rightly.  And 
so,  in  their  enthusiastic  fancy,  without  intending  to  deceive, 
they  began  to  adorn  the  simple  picture  of  Christ  with  a  rich 
garland  of  miraculous  tales,  especially  applying  to  him  all  the 
characteristics  of  the  Messiah  who  wms  predicted  and  hoped 
for,  till  at  length  the  real  history  was  entirely  covered,  and,  in 
fact,  destroyed  by  these  “  parasitic  plants  ”  (second  edit.,  p.  621). 
Many  sayings  of  Christ  were  converted  into  miracles.  “  There 
was  no  rest  for  a  word  or  a  figure  of  speech  in  primitive 
Christian  tradition,  until,  if  possible,  it  had  been  developed 
into  the  story  of  a  miracle”  (p.  514),  When  Jesus  said  that 
lie  would  make  his  disciples  fishers  of  men,  tradition  trans¬ 
formed  this  into  the  miraculous  draught  of  fishes  (sec.  70 
et  ss.).  When  he  declared  that  an  unfruitful  tree  should  be 
cut  down,  this  became  in  course  of  tradition  the  story  of  the 
withered  fig-tree  (sec.  104).  Especially  did  this  restlessly 
inventive  tradition  apply  all  the  miraculous  features  which 
could  be  discovered  in  Moses  and  the  prophets  in  a  magnified 
form  to  the  life  of  Christ.  Because  the  hand  of  Moses  and 
likewise  his  sister  Miriam  had  been  leprous  and  become  clean 
again,  and  because  Elisha  had  healed  a  leper,  theriifore  Christ 
must  also  have  healed  lepers  (ii.  52).  Because  Moses  changed 
Avater  into  blood,  Christ  must  improve  it  into  wine  (i.  220). 
Because  the  former  fed  the  people  with  manna  in  the  wilder¬ 
ness,  Jesus  must  have  fed  the  people  in  the  wilderness  too; 
and  because  Elisha  fed  one  hundred  people  with  twenty 
loaves  (1  Kings  iv.  42—44),  the  proportion  must  be  enhanced 
in  the  case  of  Christ,  and  hence  five  loaves  for  five  thousand 
people  (ii.  205).  Because  Elisha  made  one  man  see,  and 
many  others  blind  (2  Kings  vi.),  it  was  thought  probable  that 
Christ  should  have  healed  the  blind  (ii.  2).  Because  Elisha 
healed  Kaaman  without  being  present  at  his  washing,  it  was 
necessary  that  the  Messiah  should  not  do  less  (ii.  Ill  et 
ss.)  :  hence  the  legends  about  the  centurion  of  Capernaum, 
and  the  Syro-Bhcenician  woman,  both  of  them  cures  effected 
at  a  distance.  The  Jews  believed  in  a  co-operation  of  the 


384  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CUEIST.  [LECT.  VI- 

Holy  Ghost  in  the  begetting  of  important  men,  and  the  first 
Christians  literally  interpreted  Psalm  ii.  7  :  “  Thou  art  my 
Son  :  this  day  have  I  begotten  Thee,”  as  well  as  a  number  of 
passages  in  Isaiah :  hence  the  myth  that  Christ  was  the  Son 
of  God,  supernaturally  conceived  without  sin.  This  is  very 
similar  to  the  belief  of  the  heathen,  that  their  great  men  were 
sons  of  the  gods  ;  as,  too,  their  legends  relate  miraculous  stories 
about  the  birth  of  Piomulus,  Hercules,  and  other  of  their 
heroes. 

When  the  analogies  of  Jewish  tradition  are  insufficient, 
such  instances  from  heathen  mythology  are  often  appealed  to. 
Thus,  e.g.,  to  explain  the  darkening  of  the  sun  at  the  death  of 
Christ,  Strauss  says  :  “  This  was  in  fashion  then  ;  did  not  the 
sun  do  the  same,  in  the  Poman  legend,  when  Caesar  was  mur¬ 
dered,  and  before  Augustus  died?”  (p.  587.) 

In  this  manner  Strauss  goes  through  every  feature  of  the 
life  of  Christ,  and  explains  them  one  after  another  as  the  pro¬ 
ducts  of  tradition,  which  was  taken  either  from  Old  Testament 
miracles  by  combining  their  different  traits,  or  from  Messianic 
hopes  then  current,  or  from  analogous  heathen  legends.  All 
these  myths,  however,  are  supposed  to  have  been  formed 
unconsciously  and  involuntarily.  But  we  see  at  once  that 
Strauss  must  presuppose  a  great  deal  of  reflective  mental  action 
in  the  formation  of  each  single  myth,  and  hence  that  this 
could  only  take  place  intentionally ;  for  this  reason  Strauss  of 
late  years  has  spoken  more  of  “  invention  with  a  purpose  ” 
{Tenclenzcrflndui'ig).  From  the  rich  material  of  these  legends, 
which  were  often  very  different  in  different  places,  our  four 
Gospels  were  composed,  not,  however,  by  the  apostles,  but  in 
the  second  century. 

So  much  for  the  principles  and  the  method  of  Strauss’  Life 
of  Christ,  a  work  which  doubtless  owes  its  world-wide  fame 
in  great  measure  to  its  polished  style  and  aesthetic  finish. 

When  this  work  appeared  in  1835,  it  seemed  as  though 
the  last  balance  had  been  struck  in  the  criticism  of  the  gospel 
history,  and  the  result  was — bankruptcy.  An  electric  shock 
vibrated  through  the  whole  German  theology.  The  theological 
world  had  not  been  in  such  excitement  since  the  days  of  the 
Wolf enhiittcl  Fragments.  Soon,  however,  the  most  notable 
divines  came  forward  against  Strauss,  among  them  Steudel, 


LECT.  VI.]  STEAUSS’  “  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.”  385 

Tlioluck,  Neander,  Ullmann,  Dorner,  and  Ebrard  ;  whilst  others, 
such  as  Weisse,  Gfrorer,  Bruno  Baur,  endeavoured  to  carry 
out  the  mythical  hypothesis  in  tlieir  own  way.  Eor  a  time, 
Strauss  detended  himself ;  but  after  some  years  he  seemed  to 
have  spoken  his  last  word,  and  the  controversy  was  apparently 
settled.  Ullmann,  especially,  had  in  his  mild  but  clear  way 
exposed  Strauss’  weak  points. 

But  in  1864  the  book  once  more  appeared ;  this  time,  how¬ 
ever,  with  a  new  address  :  “For  the  German  People.”  ^  The 
times  were  changed.  The  principle  of  publicity  had  obtained 
more  and  more  in  every  department.  The  public  at  large  was 
beginning  to  demand  an  insight  into  the  doings  of  the  learned 
w'orld.  Formerly  Strauss  might  boast,  “  Did  I  try  to  deprive 
the  people  of  their  faith  by  means  of  a  popular  book  ?”  ^  Now, 
on  the  contrary,  he  thought  himself  justified  in  doing  this. 
And  why  ?  “  Since  the  great  majority  of  theologians  will  not 

hear  us,  we  must  speak  to  the  people  ”  (Preface,  p.  xii).  Here, 
then,  he  must  speak  more  openly,  and  we  Are  obliged  to  him 
for  doing  so. 

He  does  not  for  a  moment  leave  us  in  doubt  as  to  the 
fiindammtal  tendency  of  this  new  edition.  “  If  we  wish,”  says 
he,  “  to  make  progress  in  religious  matters,  then  those  theo¬ 
logians  who  stand  above  the  prejudices  and  interests  of  the 
profession  must  go  hand  in  hand  with  the  thinking  laymen 
in  the  Church.  As  soon  as  ever  the  best  among  the  people 
have  made  progress  enough  to  refuse  what  the  clergy  still  for 
the  most  part  offer  them,  these  latter  will  think  better  of 
it.  When  Christianity  has  ceased  to  be  miraculous,  they 
will  cease  to  be  tire  miracle-men  which  they  have  hitherto 
set  themselves  up  for.  They  will  no  longer  be  able  to  pro¬ 
nounce  blessings,  but  only  to  impart  instruction  ;  but  it  is 
well  knowm  that  the  latter  of  these  occupations  is  as  difficult 
and  thankless  as  the  former  is  easy  and  profitable  ”  (p.  xii). 
Therefore,  “  a  pressure  must  be  brought  to  bear  on  them  by 
public  opinion.  But  (and  this  is  the  only  italicised  sentence 
in  the  whole  book)  ivhoevcr  loishes  to  do  cmay  with  parsons 
in  the  Church,  must  first  do  caoay  with  the  miracles  in  religion  ” 
(p.  xix).  , 

^  We  quote  from  the  first  edition  of  1864. 

•  Slreltschrift  gegen  Sleudd,  i.  p.  20. 


386  MODEllN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CIIPJST.  [LECT.  VI, 

So  this  work,  also,  is  but  the  means  to  a  demagogue’s  ends, 
though  not  quite  in  the  same  manner  as  that  of  Schenkel. 
“  Our  ultimate  aim  is  not  to  ascertain  the  history  of  the  past, 
hut  rather  to  help  the  human  spirit  in  future  to  liberate  itself 
from  an  oppressive  yoke  of  belief”  (p.  xiv).  Strauss’  aim  is  “not 
in  the  past,  but  in  the  future  ”  (p.  xv).  He  lays  the  axe  at 
the  root  of  the  miraculous  Hew  Testament  history,  in  order 
that,  when  this  is  done  away  with,  the  parsons  may  be 
abolished  too.  It  is  his  wish  to  establish  a  free  Church 
commonwealth,  and  to  dissolve  the  different  confessions  into 
one  great  religion  of  humanity.  We  scarcely  need  to  point 
out  that  this  is  only  the  effect  of  his  old  grudge  against  the 
theologians,  who  formerly,  by  their  unanimous  verdict  against 
him,  spoilt  his  career,  and  reduced  him  to  the  occupation  of  a 
literary  man  (cf.  p.  xiii).  AVe  see  that  this  grudge  has  rather 
increased  than  decreased  from  the  select  names,  such  as  “  field- 
mice,”  “  rabble,”  “  vermin,”  which  he  bestows  upon  us  biblical 
theologians  (p.  162).  Moreover,  he  declares  that  it  is  not 
worth  his  while  “  to  fight  with  such  a  rabble  ”  as  the  recent 
apologists,  because  “  the  conservative  -theology  of  the  present 
day  is  wearying  itself  with  the  strangest  contortions  and  the 
most  venturesome  caprioles,”  and  “its  paper  battlements  do 
not  deserve  a  real  siege  but  yet  he  promises,  “  for  the  sake  of 
the  joke,  not  entirely  to  give  up  doing  so.”  In  all  this,  how¬ 
ever,  he  forgets  that  haughty  contcw/pt  for  the  oyyonents  is 
everywhere  the  worst  way  to  victory. 

Attacks  of  this  kind  are  probably  intended  as  a  piquant 
kind  of  spice  to  make  the  book  more  popular.  But  for 
all  this,  it  is  not  'pojmlar.  There  will  be  but  few  readers 
Avho  are  able  to  peruse  it  without  great  omissions.  Notwith¬ 
standing  his  promise  to  leave  out  learned  details  (p.  xiii), 
Strauss’  book  still  contains  a  mass  of  these  details,  which  are 
fatiguing  enough  to  go  into.  Strauss  does  not  possess  the 
same  art  of  writing  for  the  people  as  his  French  colleague. 
He  gives  too  much  and  too  little ;  too  much  for  the  people, 
even  those  who  are  educated,  and  too  little  for  the  professional 
theologian. 

Moreover,  the  arravgement  of  the  matter  in  this  second 
edition  is  far  too  prolix  to  be  interesting,  going  as  it  does 
tiuice  through  the  whole  subject.  In  the  first  edition,  Strauss, 


LECT.  Va]  STEAUSS’  “  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.”  387 

after  dissolving  the  life  of  Christ  into  a  series  of  nijdhs,  merely 
gave  a  lew  positive  hints  as  to  what  remained  of  Christianity 
according  to  his  view  ;  in  the  second  edition,  he  begins  with  a 
positive  account  of  the  probable  historical  nucleus  of  the  life 
of  Christ.  Thus  the  first  part  contains  “  a  historical  sketch  of 
the  life  of  Christ,”  and  the  second  part,  “  origin  and  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  mythical  history  of  Christ first  the  tree,  and 
then  the  creepers.  But  since  both  are  followed  out  from  end 
to  end,  there. are  of  necessity  many  repetitions  and  constant 
references  backwards  and  forwards,  whilst  numerous  portions 
which  belong  together  are  separated. 

The  first  'part  rests  upon  the  axiom,  that  “  roe.  now  hnoro  for 
certain  at  least  what  Jesus  ivas  not  and  did  not  do,  viz.  nothing 
sirperhunian  nor  supernatural.  We  shall  thus  probably  be 
enabled  to  follow  out  the  hints  given  in  the  Gospels  as  to  his 
natural  and  human  characteristics  far  enough  to  obtain  an 
approximately  correct  outline  of  what  he  was  and  what  he 
wanted”  (p.  160  et  s.).  Strauss  leaves  as  historical  only  what 
is  in  accordance  with  the  course  of  nature  at  the  present  day, 
vrhat  would  seem  necessarily  to  result  from  the  relations  of 
Jewish  and  Gentile  humanity  at  that  time,  and  that  in  which 
all  the  evangelists  strictly  agree.  All  else  is  rejected,  or  at 
least  impugned.  Thus  negations  form  the  chief  element  even 
of  this  “  positive  ”  part.  It  can  easily  be  imagined  how  little 
remains  that  is  historical ;  much  the  same  as  in  the  former 
edition.  Jesus,  the  son  of  a  carpenter,  was  born  in  ISTazareth, 
and  not  in  Bethlehem,  whither  Luke  transports  him  by  means 
of  “  special  machinery.”  ^  “  He  was  induced  by  what  he 

'  Pp.  323,  335,  et  ss., — meaning,  of  course,  the  taxation  in  Lukeii.  1  et  ss.  It 
Tvas  an  absolute  necessity  for  the  son  of  David  somehow  to  be  born  in  Bethlehem. 
As  the  writer  of  St.  Luke’s  Gospel  “was  cudgelling  his  brains  for  an  expedient 
which  should  bring  the  parents  of  Christ  to  Bethlehem,  in  order  that  he  might 
be  born  there,  this  taxation  occurred  to  him  ”  (p.  336).  But  in  adding,  “When 
Cyrenius  (i.e.  Quirinus)  was  governor  of  Syria,”  he  made  a  blunder  of  some  six 
or  seven  years,  for  Quirinus  did  not  become  proconsul  till  so  many  5"ears  later 
on  ;  and  thus  the  unhistorical  character  of  his  narrative  is  betrayed.  Strauss 
assures  us  that  since  1835  he  has  “corrected  and  supplemented  his  results,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  truits  of  further  investigations  both  by  himself  and  by  others”  (p. 
xiii).  Does  he,  then,  know  nothing  of  the  fact  that  the  investigations  made 
as  to  this  imperial  taxation  under  Augustus  have  proved  that  Quirinus  was 
twice  proconsul  ?  As  early  as  1854,  Dr.  Zumpt  (in  his  work  Comment ationum 
eplcjraphic.  ad  antiquit.  Itom.  pertinentium,  vol.  ii.)  showed  from  profane 
sources  that  Quirinus  was  proconsul  in  Syria  not  only  from  the  year  6  A.D.,  but 


388 


MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [LECT.  VI. 


heard  of  the  Baptist  to  resort  to  Jordan,  for  he,  too,  was  dis¬ 
satisfied  with  the  existing  religious  institutions”  (p.  195)  ;  and 
he  probably  remained  for  some  time  amongst  the  followers  of 
John.  The  silence  of  the  Gospels  is  no  proof  against  this  (!), 
since  they  sought  to  avoid  even  a  transitory  subordination  of 
Christ  to  the  Baptist  for  dogmatic  reasons.  “  Both  of  them 
aimed  at  the  moral  elevation  of  their  people,  and  at  the  crea¬ 
tion  of  a  people’s  church,  which  should  be  worthy  to  receive 
the  coming  Messiah  in  its  midst”  (p.  196).  John,  however, 
“  chiefly  employed  sharp  denunciation  and  threats  of  divine 
judgment,”  whilst  Jesus  used  only  love.  “Bor  the  highest 
religious  sentiment  which  existed  in  his  consciousness  was 
that  love  which  embraces  all,  and  overcomes  evil  itself  only 
with  good,  and  this  he  transferred  to  God  as  the  chief  attribute 
of  His  Being”  (p.  207).  Hence  His  precepts  in  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  respecting  tolerance,  love  to  brethren  and  to 
enemies.  “  If  any  saying  of  the  New  Testament  proceeded 
from  the  mouth  of  Christ,  assuredly  Matt.  v.  45  did  so  (‘He 
maketh  His  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  on  the  good,’  etc.). 
This  is  a  fundamental  trait  in  the  piety  of  Christ  :  he  felt  and 
conceived  his  heavenly  Bather  as  indiscriminate  Goodness” 
(p.  206).  Inasmuch  as  Christ,  in  this  temper  of  humane  love, 
felt  Himself  to  be  united  with  His  heavenly  Bather,  all  His 
happiness  sprang  therefrom.  “  By  developing  in  himself  this 
cheerful  frame  of  soul,  at  peace  with  God  and  in  love  with  all 
men  as  brothers,  Christ  had  realized  the  prophetic  ideal  of  the 

also  once  before,  from  the  year  4  b.c.  (It  is  well  known  that  the  precise  year 
of  our  Lord’s  birth  is  uncertain  ;  probably  it  is  really  some  years  earlier  than  our 
account  makes  it.)  The  last  work  of  Zumpt  {das  Geburtsjahr  Christi ;  geschichtl. 
chronolog.  Untersucliungen,  1869)  is  a  brilliant  testimony  to  his  learning,  and 
arrives  at  the  .same  conclusion  as  historically  indubitable  (pp.  43,  71).  St. 
Luke  himself  only  says  that  Christ  was  born  at  the  time  of  that  taxation,  which 
was  the  first  under  Quirimts,  in  contradistinction  to  other  similar  ones  ;  and  he 
gives  us  the  occasion  of  it,  which  consisted  in  an  imperial  edict  issued  long 
before.  “The  record  of  Luke  gains  full  historical  probability  from  the  fact  that 
the  second  taxation  (of  which  Josephus  tells)  applied  only  to  property,  which 
according  to  Jewish  law  should  necessarily  be  compjeted  by  a  taxation  oi persons 
(or  poll-tax),  and  that  no  fitter  time  can  be  fixed  upon  for  this  than  the  first 
proconsulate  of  Quirinus.”  The  murder  of  the  innocents  at  Bethlehem  is  also 
historical  (p.  227  ft’.).  In  Luke  iii.  1,  “the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius”  is  reckoned 
from  his  appointment  to  the  co-regency  of  the  iirovinces  and  armies,  as  was 
often  done.  ‘  ‘  Thus  all  contradictions  between  the  data  of  St.  Luke  and  other 
writers  are  removed.” 


LECT.  VI.] 


STKAUSS’  “  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.” 


389 


new  covenant,  with  the  law  of  God  written  in  the  heart ;  he 
had  received  the  Deity  into  his  will,  and  thereiore  for  him 
the  Deity  had  descended  from  Its  eternal  throne.  This  cheer¬ 
ful  and  unbroken  spirit,  acting  out  of  the  gladness  and  joy  of 
a  beautiful  soul,  we  may  call  the  Hellenic  element  in  Christ. 
The  pure  spirituality  and  strict  morality  of  his  own  heart’s 
impulses,  and  of  his  idea  of  God,  was  a  legacy  of  the  Jewish 
national  spirit ;  the  result  of  his  bringing  up  in  the  law,  and 
his  education  in  the  prophets”  (pp.  207,  208). 

Strauss  rightly  rejects  the  opinion  that  Jesus  merely  accom¬ 
modated  Himself  to  the  Messianic  idea  of  the  Jews.  “  In 
this  case  there  can  be  no  question  of  accommodation  or  of 
playing  a  part ;  in  such  a  person  every  inch  must  have  been 
conviction.”  Dor  this  reason  he  approves  of  Schleiermacher’s 
saying,  that  “  Christ  must  have  been  convinced  from  the  depths 
of  his  inward  consciousness  that  no  one  else  but  he  was 
referred  to  in  the  IMessianic  prophecies  contained  in  the  sacred 
writings  of  his  people”  (p.  229).  But  Christ  never  repre¬ 
sented  himself  to  be  the  son  of  God  in  a  unique  superhuman 
sen’se.^  In  contradistinction  to  the  Messiah  as  Son  of  God, 
Christ  especially  loved  to  call  himself  the  son  of  man,  a  term 
which  pointed  to  his  natural  humanity  (p.  228).  The  fourth 
Gospel  contains  the  fewest  genuine  traces  of  the  religious  con¬ 
sciousness  of  Christ.  For  “  no  man  wuth  a  sound  head  and 
heart,  whoever  he  were,  could  have  spoken  of  himself  in  the 
way  that  does  the  Jesus  of  this  Gospel”  (p.  201).  It  is, 
however,  certain  that  Christ  connected  the  epoch  of  the  world’s 
consummation  with  a  miraculous  change  to  be  produced  by 
God,  and  that  He  spoke  of  His  second  coming  in  glory  to 
judge  the  world.  But  in  this  respect  "  he  appears  to  us  not 
only  as  an  enthusiast,  but  as  guilty  of  undue  self-exaltation  ” 
(pp.  241,  242). 

As  for  miracles,  not  only  did  Christ  never  perform  any,  but 
neither  did  He  ever  say  that  He  had.  In  Matt.  xi.  5  only 
the  spiritually  blind  and  lame,  etc.  are  referred  to  (p.  265  ; 
and  yet  even  Strauss  confesses  that  “  the  works  of  Christ,” 
ver.  2,  refer  to  His  miracles).  “  However,  it  w’as  little  use 
for  Jesus  to  refuse  to  do  corporal  miracles :  according  to  the 
idea  of  his  contemporaries  and  co-patriots,  he  must  needs  per- 
•  Cf.  our  refutation  of  this  statement  in  Lect.  IV.  pp.  245-251. 


390  MODEllX  ACCOUxXTS  OE  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT.  VI. 

form  them  nolens  volcns.”  As  a  prophet,  He  was  expected  to 
possess  miraculous  power.  When  sufferers  everywliere  (?) 
tried  to  touch  His  garments,  because  they  expected  healing 
from  Him,  “  it  would  have  been  strange  if  there  had  not  been 
some  cases  of  real  cure  or  momentary  alleviation,  resulting 
from  the  intense  impression,  partly  sensuous  and  partly 
spiritual,  on  an  excited  imagination  ;  and  these  cures  were,  of 
course,  ascribed  to  the  miraculous  power  of  Christ”  (p.  226). 
Cures  of  this  kind,  through  excitement  of  the  imagination, 
were  especially  possible  in  the  case  of  a  sickness  “  which  itselt 
greatly  depended  on  the  imagination,  and  which  was  fashion¬ 
able  amongst  the  Jews  at  that  time,  viz.  demoniacal  pos¬ 
session.”  Eelapses,  of  course,  could  not  fail  to  appear  in 
“  fancy  cures  ”  such  as  these.  At  these  miracles  Strauss 
draws  the  boundary  line  of  the  historical  region,  and  entirely 
banishes  all  the  greater  miracles,  such  as  increasing  the  bread, 
changing  the  water  into  wine,  raising  the  dead,  into  the  realm  of 
legend  ;  because  here  “  all  conceivableness  according  to  the  laws 
of  nature  is  at  an  end”  (p.  267).  Clearly  this  is  a  distinction 
between  miracles  of  healing  (as  naturally  explicable  doings) 
and  works  of  absolute  omnipotence,  similar  to  that  of  Schenkel 
(p.  362).  Yet  Strauss  says  (p.  33)  :  “It  is  not  permissible 
to  make  a  distinction  amongst  miracles,  and  to  accept  those 
which  show  an  analogy  wnth  natural  occurrences,  while  reject¬ 
ing  others  as  magical,  for  every  miracle  is  magical.”  How 
can  he  speak  so,  seeing  that  those  who  thus  distinguish, 
like  Strauss  himself,  do  not  consider  the  former  class  as 
miracles  strictly  speaking  ?  What  right  has  he  to  be  so  indig¬ 
nant  at  the  rationalistic  explanation  of  miracles  practised  by 
Schenkel  and  others,  when  he  himself  uses  the  old  rational¬ 
istic  arts  of  explaining  away  miracles  by  means  of  “  excited 
imagination,”  and  so  forth  ? 

Strauss  has  a  very  poor  opinion  of  the  disciples.  Their 
dreams  about  a  restoration  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  (Luke 
xxiv.  21  and  Acts  i.  6)  “give  us  a  very  small  idea  of  their 
powers  of  comprehension.”  Their  stubborn  prejudice  against 
the  admission  of  Gentiles  into  the  Messianic  kingdom,  shows 
us  “  that  they  were  incapable  of  drawing  conclusions  from 
their  master’s  principles.”  The  one  genuine  writing  of  a 
disciple  in  the  Hew  Testament,  the  Eevelation  of  St.  John, 


LECT.  VI.] 


STRAUSS’  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.” 


391 


“gives  us  a  melanclioly  impression  of  the  imperfect  way  in 
which  Christ  was  understood  by  his  most  intimate  disciple. 
.  .  .  .  The  importance  given  to  the  subsequent  appearance 
ot  Paul  proves  that  there  was  no  one  amongst  the  immediate 
disciples  ot  Christ  who  was.  fitted  to  be  his  representative, 
and  capable  of  further  developing  the  ideas  of  his  master  in 
accordance  with  the  wants  of  the  age  ”  (p.  2  7  6). 

Accompanied  by  His  Galilean  followers,  Jesus  goes  to 
Jerusalem,  cleanses  the  temple,  attacks  the  ruling  priestly 
party  most  sharply  in  public  speeches,  and  exhorts  the  people 
to  turn  away  from  them.  Of  course  all  these  steps  could  not 
but  arouse  the  anxiety  of  the  hierarchs,  and  move  them  to  get 
rid  of  so  dangerous  an  opponent  by  any  means  (p.  279). 
The  scene  in  Gethsemane  is  certainly  “  strongly  adorned  with 
mythical  traits.”  We  cannot  imagine  that  Jesus  knew  of  His 
death  beforehand  with  exactitude  and  certainty.  Nevertheless 
during  His  last  days,  the  thought  of  a  violent  end  probably 
became  more  and  more  familiar  to  Him,  and  cast  dark  shadows 
on  His  soul.  His  death  on  the  cross  was  real,  and  not  merely 
apparent  (p.  283  ff.).  His  burial  by  Joseph  of  Arimathea  is 
uncertain  on  account  of  differences  in  the  narratives ;  possibly 
he  “  was  hastily  interred  in  some  dishonourable  burying- 
place”  (p.  287).  According  to  traditional  Jewish  ideas,  Christ 
had  lost  all  claim  to  the  title  of  Messiah  by  His  death  upon 
the  cross.  Now,  how^ever,  “the  disciples  altered  their  old 
Jewish  ideas  in  accordance  with  this  fact,  by  including  the 
attribute  of  a  vicarious  suffering,  and  of  violent  death  as  a 
redeeming  sacrifice,  in  their  conception  of  the  Messiah” 
(p.  575).  We  have  no  testimonies  of  an  eye-witness  as  to  an 
appearance  of  the  risen  Christ  (p.  291).  Both  the  appearance 
of  Christ  to  Saul  on  his  way  to  Damascus,  and  all  others, 
“  were  simply  inward  occurrences  which  might  well  affect  the 
persons  in  question  as  outward  and  objective  perceptions,  but 
which  we  have  to  conceive  of  as  visions  produced  by  an 
excited  condition  of  the  mind”  (cf.  Lect.  VII.). 

This  is  the  “  historical  kernel  ”  of  the  life  of  Christ  which 
Strauss  leaves  us.  We  should  prefer  to  call  it  the  shell  from 
which  the  kernel  has  been  extracted. 

The  second  part  of  his  book  sliows  us  how  the  various 
myths,  as  it  were,  crystallize  around  this  nucleus.  Along  with 


392  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT.  VI. 

the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  we  see  the  idea  of 
Him  “  jdaced  in  a  temperature  Avhich  could  not  but  result  in 
a  luxuriant  growth,  producing  numerous  unhistorical  shoots, 
each  one  more  miraculous  than  the  last.  The  divinely  in¬ 
spired  son  of  David  now  becomes  the  son  of  God,  begotten 
without  a  father ;  the  son  of  God  developes  into  the  incar¬ 
nate  creative  Logos.  The  philanthropic  miraculous  physician 
becomes  a  raiser  of  the  dead,  the  unlimited  Lord  of  nature 
and  her  laws.  The  wise  teacher  of  the  people,  the  prophet 
who  saw  into  men’s  hearts,  noAv  becomes  the  omniscient 
alter  Ego  of  God.  He  who  after  his  resurrection  returned  to 
God,  came  from  Him  before  his  birth”  (p.  161).  Thus  one 
layer  formed  on  another,  each  one  being,  as  it  were,  the  pre¬ 
cipitate  of  the  ideas  current  at  a  certain  time,  and  in  certain 
circles,  till  at  length  the  fourth  Gospel  reached  tlie  climax 
of  Christ’s  deification  and  spiritualization.  Strauss  then  goes 
through  the  whole  history  of  Christ  in  all  its  features,  repre¬ 
senting  each  one  (just  as  in  his  former  work)  as  the  product 
of  inventive  legends.  These  he  supposes  to  have  gathered 
their  materials  from  the  histories  of  David,  Moses,  Samuel, 
and  others,  or  from  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  many  of 
Avhose  sayings  they  uncritically  applied  to  Christ,  or  even 
from  the  heathen  mythology.^  One  cannot  help  wondering 
how  so  stunted  a  historical  shrub  could  nourish  so  many 
mythological  parasites. 

Thus  Ave  see  that  the  standpoint  of  this  edition  of  the 
of  Christ  is  essentially  the  same  as  that  of  the  first  one,  only 
that  noAv  Strauss  supposes  far  more  intentional  invention  than 
formerly  in  place  of  the  unconscious  fabrication  of  myths. 
He  himself  says ;  “  In  this  ncAv  Avork,  I  have,  chiefly  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  Baur’s  investigations,  used  the  supposition  of 
conscious  and  intentional  invention  far  more  freely  than 
before”  (p.  159).  At  the  same  time  he  applies  the  term 
“  myth  ”  equally  to  the  products  of  conscious  and  unconscious 
invention.  And  yet  the  theories  of  Strauss  and  Baur  do  evi- 

'  E.j.  Strauss  can  find  no  parallel  in  the  Old  Testament  to  the  visit  of  Jesus 
as  a  boy  in  the  temple.  lie  tlierefore  proceeds  to  drag  in  by  the  head  and 
shoulders  a  legend  mentioned  by  Suetonius,  that  Augustus  when  a  little  child 
was  once  suddenly  missed  from  his  cradle,  and  found  lying  in  the  highest  part 
of  the  house.  And  this  he  considers  an  analogy  to  Jesus  remaining  in  the 
temple !  1 


LECT.  VI.] 


STKAUSS’  “  LIFE  OF  CHEIST  ” 


393 


dently  exclude  each  other}  Strauss  originally  proceeds  on  the 
supposition  of  a  simple  inventive  tradition,  whilst  Baur  takes 
his  stand  on  the  relation  of  parties  as  at  that  day,  and  looks 
upon  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  as  products  of  a 
distinct  purpose.  Strauss’  theory  assumes  the  utmost  naivete 
in  the  writers  of  the  Gospel,  Baur’s  the  self-conscious  purpose 
of  the  resolute  partisan.  It  must  make  an  exceedingly  un¬ 
pleasant  impression  on  every  impartial  reader,  to  see  how 
Strauss  employs  this  art  which  he  has  learned  from  Baur  by 
fathering  upon  narrators  so  simple  and  true-hearted  as  our 
evangelists  such  dogmatic  presuppositions,  conscious  fictions, 
crafty  intentions,  ay,  finely  calculated  lies. 

The  whole  style  of  this  book,  except  that  of  the  preface, 
will  disappoint  the  reader  who  considered  Strauss  to  be  a 
master  of  the  art  of  delineation.  Nowhere  is  there  a  life-like 
development,  or  an  exciting  progress,  not  even  so  much  as  in 
Schenkel’s  work.  The  various  sections  have  no  vital  connec¬ 
tion,  even  in  the  “  positive  ”  part ;  they  stand  side  by  side 
like  abstract  heads.  They  read  like  so  many  critical  treedises, 
but  not  as  a  life-like  delineation.  The  narrative  is  like  a 
stuffed  fifiure  without  flesh  and  blood:  instead  of  being  full 
of  life,  it  is  replete  with  marks  of  interrogation ;  instead  of 
presenting  a  vivid  and  concrete  reality,  it  merely  leaves  a  few 
probabilities.  Nowhere  do  we  see — to  say  nothing  of  the  Son 
of  God — even  the  man  Jesus,  the  Prophet  of  Nazareth  as  He 
w^alked  and  lived  amongst  men.  A  constant  and  wearisome 
sifting  of  the  records  only  leaves  us  detached  fragments  of 
His  person.  His  consciousness.  His  life,  and  His  work.  ■  No 
sooner  is  a  step  made  towards  a  description  of  actual  history, 
no  sooner  have  we  entered  on  the  oasis  of  some  living  reality, 
than  straightway  the  ground  beneath  our  feet  again  begins  to 
rock,  and  we  once  more  see  before  us  the  sad  and  sandy  wastes 
of  the  mythical  desert.  Surely  at  that  time,  if  ever,  when  the 
central  figure  of  all  history  was  walking  upon  earth,  the  j^ulse 
of  history  must  have  beat  strongly.  But  instead  of  the  fresh  air 
of  a  world-renewing  history,  which  breathes  so  sensibly  in  the 
Gospels,  we  have  in  this  book  the  odours  of  a  grave.  Instead 
of  the  mighty  hammers  of  an  age  that  is  being  built  up  afresh, 

1  Though  Zellei’  (in  Vortrage  u.  Ahhandlungen  geschichtl.  InhallSy  1865) 
endeavours  to  combine  them. 


394  MODERX  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [LECT.  VI. 

we  hear  only  the  monotonous  creaking  of  the  critical  wind¬ 
mill,  which,  for  the  smallest  differences,  is  grinding  the  gospel 
narratives  into  pieces  against  each  other.  We  need  not  expect 
anything  else,  for  the  writer  himself  confesses  that  the 
negative,  element  is  of  primary  importance.”  So  that  when 
we  read  a  treatise  on  the  “  scene  and  duration  of  the  ministry 
of  Christ,”  the  matter  itself  is  described  in  a  few  sentences 
only ;  or  when  we  read  about  “  Christ’s  manner  of  teaching,” 
we  are  told  almost  nothing  about  the  doctrine  itself,  for  even 
the  parables  of  the  first  three  Gospels  are  almost  without 
exception  crumbled  away  by  criticism.  Were  we  to  eliminate 
the  whole  of  the  critical  apparatus,  there  would  be  but  few 
leaves  of  this  thick  volume  left.  And  yet  this  is  supposed 
to  be  a  historical  sketch  “  for  the  German  nation !  ” 

Strauss  prefaces  his  work  with  a  critique  of  the  Gospels  as 
records  of  the  life  of  Christ,  in  which  he  comes  to  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  all  our  four  Gospels  are  spurious.  He  makes  a 
lengthy  effort  to  support  this  assertion,  but  without  doing 
justice  to  the  present  standpoint  of  criticism,  for  which  reason 
our  best  authorities  now  condemn  this  performance  as  behind 
the  age.  Strauss  simply  accepts  and  argues  from  the  positions 
of  the  Tubin'mn  school.  Unlike  Schenkel,  he  considers  the 
Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  not  indeed  as  the  work  of  the  apostle, 
but  yet  as  the  “  most  original  and  relatively  credible  ”  (p.  115) 
of  the  four,  although  it  has  probably  undergone  many  re¬ 
visions.  '  St.  Mark  “  made  up  ”  his  Gospel  from  extracts  taken 
out  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  putting  in  here  and  there  some  fresh 
and  vivid  additions  as  a  kind  of  “beauty  spots”  (p.  132). 
The  Gospel  of  Luke  was  written  between  those  of  JMatthew 
and  Mark,  i.e.  before  the  year  135,  but  at  a  time  “when  it 
was  scarcely  possible  that  a  companion  of  St.  Paul  should 
have  been  living  and  writing  books.”  It  onlv  received  Luke’s 
name  for  the  sake  of  the  Acts  (itself  an  unhistorical  partisan 
fiction)  (pp.  126,  127).  The  Gospel  of  John  was  composed  far 
later  in  the  course  of  the  second  century,  and  this  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  conclusions  of  Baur,  who  regards  it  as  a  party 
production,  without  the  slightest  historical  credibility.  Strauss 
makes  no  secret  of  his  contempt  for  this  Gospel,  nor  indeed 
for  the  three  others.  He  criticises  them  all,  and  especially 
the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  with  the  most  profane  levity. 


LECT.  VI.] 


STRAUSS’  “  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.’* 


395 


But  with  all  this  assumption  of  superiority,  Strauss  is  some 
twenty-five  years  behindhand  in  his  critical  standpoint,  and 
seems  to  feel  this  himself.  He  is  so  for  this  simple  reason, 
that  the  “  Tubingen  school”  whose  old  theories  he  desperately 
clings  to,  has  in  that  time  been  compelled  to  make  some  very  large 
concessions.  Baur  himself  first  placed  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew 
between  the  years  130  and  134,  then  in  the  year  115,  and 
at  last  105—110.  According  to  C.  E.  Kostlin,  this  Gospel, 
in  its  present  form,  originated  between  9  0  and  100;  in  its 
original  form,  between  70  and  80.  According  to  Hilgenfeld, 
probably  the  most  distinguished  of  Baur’s  disciples,  it  was 
composed  in  its  present  form  certainly  before  the  year  80  ; 
according  to  Holtzmann  and  Keim,  before  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  i.e.  cir.  a.d.  66.  You  see  how  the  critical  school 
has  drawn  back  from  its  earlier  positions.  The  Gospel  of  St, 
Mark  has  these  various  dates  assigned  to  it ;  Kostlin,  before 
110;  Keim,  100;  Hilgenfeld,  before  100;  Volkmar,  73; 
Schenkel  (in  its  original  form),  between  45  and  58.  The 
Gospel  of  St  Luke:  Baur,  150;  Zeller,  130;  Hilgenfeld, 
before  120  ;  Volkmar,  100  ;  Kostlin  {vide  above),  shortly  before 
Matthew  ;,Keim,  90  ;  Holtzmann  (with  Mark),  75-80.  Even 
as  regards  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  the  critical  school  has  had 
to  retire  step  for  step  from  Baur’s  calculation  (160)  to  the 
beginning  of  the  second  century,^  at  which  time  John  was 
probably  still  living.  Amongst  other  distinguished  men,  Ewald 
sharply  criticises  the  Tubingen  school.  He  considers  that 
Mark  wrote  soon  after  the  death  of  Peter ;  the  Gospel  by 
Matthew  was  written  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
(70)  ;  the  Gospel  by  St.  Luke,  between  75  and  80.  These 
are  the  results  of  criticism  up  to  the  present  day.  We  would 
only  stop  to  take  exception  to  the  statement  made  by  Zeller 
and  others,  that  the  first  churches  would  not  feel  the  need  of 
written  records  until  after  the  apostolic  generation  had  died 
out.  Surely  it  is  far  more  likely  that  this  w^ant  should  be 
felt  while  the  apostles  were  still  living,  because  they  could 

'  Keim  {Jesu  von  Nazara,  p.  146)  dates  it  from  100-117.  Cl.  against  Keim 
and  Scliolten  tlie  excellent  Commentary  on  St.  John  by  Godet ;  also  his  work, 
Prvfung  der  wichtigsten  Kritischen  Streit/ragen  uber  das  vierte  Evangellum 
(1866);  also  Riggenbach,  Die  Zeugnisse  far  das  Ev.  Johannis  (1866);  van 
Oosterzee,  Das  Johannisevangeliiim  (1867) ;  and  Leuschner,  Das  Euang.  Si. 
Johannis  u.  seine  neuesten  Widersacher  (1873). 


396  MODEl’vN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT.  VI. 

not  be  in  all  the  churches  at  once  to  watch  over  the  purity  of 
tradition.  But  in  the  case  of  gospel  records  being  written  by 
others,  we  must  always  suppose  them  to  have  been  directed 
and  controlled  by  the  apostles. 

Thus  we  see  that  Strauss  stands  very  much  alone  in  his 
critical  position,  and  that  even  the  most  negative  portion  of 
the  critical  school  is  shaking  the  ground  under  his  feet.  It  is 
becoming  more  and  more  difficult  for  Strauss  to  maintain  that 
his  “  myths  ”  were  formed  during  the  post-apostolic  age,  since 
even  the  critical  school  itself  acknowledges  the  existence  of 
gospels,  i.e.  of  extensive  miraculous  records,  in  the  apostolic 
age,  so  that  their  writers,  whoever  they  were,  must  have  been 
contemporaries  of  friends  and  disciples  of  Jesus.  In  our  day 
there  is  scarcely  a  single  notable  critic  who  would  dare  to 
deny  that  there  wore  not  numerous  narratives  of  miracles 
performed  by  our  Lord  in  circulation  amongst  the  first  Chris¬ 
tians,  which  formed  the  basis  of  their  testimony  for  His 
IMessiahship,  and  that  without  contradiction  from  the  apostles. 
Let  us  take  note  of  this  for  the  present.  A  hundred  years 
after  a  man’s  death  a  legend  about  him  may  easily  originate ; 
but  how,  ii  his  contemporaries  relate  it  ? 

Having  thus  become  acquainted  with  the  work  of  Strauss 
in  its  general  outlines,  we  will  now  proceed  to  investigate  it : 
first,  its  presuppositions,  and  method ;  then  the 

historieal  possibility  of  the  formation  of  myths  ;  and  last,  its 
view  of  the  person  and  the  self -testimony  of  Christ. 

In  a  recent  pamphlet,^  as  in  his  former  Life  of  Christ,  Strauss 
has  contessed  with  praiseworthy  candour  that  his  “  former 
standpoint  was  that  of  the  Hegelian  philosophy.”  Hor  is  this 
otherwise  now.  The  principle  which  governs  the  whole  work 
is  that  of  Pantheism.  Strauss  plainly  enough  indicates  that 
he  believes  neither  in  a  personal  God,  nor  in  the  immortality 
of  the  soul,  nor,  oi  course,  in  retribution  after  death.  To  him 
the  words  apply,  that  “  whosoever  denieth  the  Son,  the  same 
hath  not  the  Father”  (1  John  ii.  23).  In  the  dedication  at 
the  beginning,  he  praises  a  deceased  friend  because  he  “  never 
yielded  to  the  temptation  of  deceiving  himself  by  borrowing 
from  another  world”  (p.  10).  For  his  own  part  he  renounces 
the  hope  of  dying  “  happy,”  and  only  hopes  to  die  “  quietly  ” 
'  Die  halben  u.  die  Ganzen,  p.  42, 


LECT.  VI.]  STRAUSS’  '' LIFE  OF  CUEIST.”  397 

{libi  stip?).  For  God  is  that  “  indiscriminate  Goodness  ”  which 
“rains  upon  the  just  and  upon  the  unjust”  (p.  206),  before 
which  the  small  distinctions  that  we  make  between  good  and 
evil  are  dissolved  into  one — all  true  signs  of  Pantheism.^ 
Hence  the  pleasure  which  Strauss  takes  in  those  sayings  of 
Christ  which  can  he  explained  in  this  sense  (p.  206  et  s.), 
whilst  he  abhors  the  numerous  j)assages  which  speak  of  a 
future  retribution,  or  of  Christ  as  Judge  of  the  world  (pp. 
242,  276,  513,  et  s.).  The  former  class  of  passages  may  stand 
as  genuine  and  true ;  the  latter  must  be  either  later  additions 
springing  from  dogmatic  presuppositions,  or  else  serious  tokens 
of  fanaticism  and  self-exaltation  in  Christ.  Thus  Strauss  ex¬ 
plains  the  beatitudes  which  Christ  promises  for  o,  future  world, 
as  applying  to  this  life.  In  “  transferring  the  realization  of 
this  blessedness  to  heaven,  Jesus  speaks  according  to  the 
notions  of  his  age  and  of  his  nation.”  In  truth  this  blessed¬ 
ness  simply  means,  that  the  new  spiritual  life  wdiich  has  been 
awakened  in  mankind  is  to  shape  the  outward  wmrld  in  unison 
with  itself,  and  this  takes  place  naturally  and  little  by  little, 
though  never  perfectly,  in  this  world,  and  is  expected  in  the 
next  as  a  wonderful  compensation  only  by  religious  fancy 
(p.  205).  The  salvation  of  man  is,  “in  more  intelligible 
language,  the  possibility  that  he  should  fulfil  his  destiny, 
develope  the  powers  implanted  in  liim,  and  thus  enjoy  the 
corresponding  measure  of  happiness”  (p.  624).  These  senti¬ 
ments  will  confirm  what  I  have  already  remarked  (p.  137),  that 
the  entire  conflict  in  the  present  day  as  to  the  person  of  Christ 
springs  from  certain  fundamental  differences  in  the  idea  of 
God,  and  that  the  negative  critics  of  the  gospel  history  have 
in  reality  no  other  aim  than  to  introduce  into  the  Christian 
Church  a  new  pantheistic  conception  of  God.  This  is  the 
^'forward  aim”  of  Strauss’  book  (p.  xv).  At  the  same  time 
it  is  also  evident  that  we  were  perfectly  justified  (p.  287)  in 
representing  the  denial  of  the  miraculous  as  leading  to  the 
destruction  of  all  religion.  For  what  profit  is  there  in  religion 

*  Compare  the  blasphemous  way  in  which  Stranss  excuses  the  sins  of  Israel 
against  Jehovah  (p.  168)  :  “After  both  of  them  had  entered  into  a  covenant, 
either  side  soon  had  cause  for  complaint  against  the  other  ;  there  was  not  much 
to  be  felt  of  the  special  protection  which  Jehovah  had  promised  to  His  Israel ! !  ” 
etc.  etc. 


398  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT.  VI. 


if  there  be  no  personal  God,  and  no  other  world  ?  This  view 
ot  the  world,  it  is  true,  would  fain  give  itself  the  appearance 
of  rendering  man  truly  energetic  by  making  him  depend  only 
on  himself.  But  this  is  a  lie.  By  depriving  him  of  all  super¬ 
natural  help,  it  paralyses  his  powers  and  takes  away  his  moral 
energy.  Goethe  truly  says,  they  who  expect  no  other  lije,  are 
for  this  life  already  cicada 

The  first  consequence  of  these  pantheistic  principles  of 
Strauss,  is  the  pre-established  negation  of  cdl  that  is  supernedwred 
either  in  the  person  or  in  the  work  of  Christ.  The  sentiment 
above  quoted,  that  “  we  know  for  certain  at  least  what  Christ 
was  not  and  did  not  do,  viz.  nothing  superhuman  nor  super¬ 
natural,”  decides  the  whole  question,  and  settles  the  method 
of  investigation  beforehand.  War  is  declared  against  every¬ 
thing  in  the  works  or  words  of  Christ,  which  betrays  a  trace 
of  God’s  special  influence,  or  of  His  higher  nature ;  all  such 
elements  must  be  got  rid  of  at  any  price.  This  is  the 
assumption  with  which  Strauss  sets  to  work.  He  so  often 
speaks  slightingly  of  “  dogmatic  presuppositions,”  and  he  him¬ 
self  approaches  his  task  with  the  largest  prcsvpposition  of  all, 
with  an  axiom  which  decides  the  result  of  all  his  investiga¬ 
tions  beforehand.  What  is  the  real  pivot  of  the  entire  con¬ 
troversy,  if  it  be  not  the  Godhead  ot  Christ  ?  If  a  man  claim 
to  write  a  life  of  Christ,  the  reader,  and  especially  the  German 
people,”  may  well  demand  that  he  should  closely  investigate 
this  cardinal  question.  But  what  does  Strauss  do  ?  He 
simply  cuts  short  the  whole  matter  by  a  bold  assertion  !  Just 
the  most  important  point  lohich  ought  to  have  been  investigated 
and  established  is  not  examined  into,  but  simply  tedeen  for 
granted.  Strauss  knows  tor  certain  that  it  is  so,  and  that  is 
enough  !  And  are  we  to  accept  this  as  criticism,  as  unbiassed 
historical  investigation  ?  “  We  know  for  certain  that  there  was 

nothing  supernatural  in  Christ:” — Strauss  utters  these  words 
with  an  assurance  which  reminds  us  of  the  lau!];uaG:e  of  those 
who,  when  Christ  was  upon  earth,  thought  they  “  knew  for 
certain”  that  He  was  not  from  God.  “We  know  that  this 
man  is  a  sinner.”  Strange,  Strauss  is  especially  fond  of 
abusing  the  “  priestly  caste  ;  ”  but  it  does  not  occur  to  him 
that  in  this  self-contented  “  we  know,”  he  is  speaking  the 
language  of  the  proudest  “  caste  ”  that  ever  existed  ! 


LECT.  VI.] 


STEAUSS’  “  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.” 


399 


Strauss  does  make  an  effort,  though  an  utterly  unsuccessful 
one,  to  verify  his  opinion  as  to  the  spuriousness  of  our  Gospels. 
But  in  no  flacc  does  he  make  a  serious  attempt  to  justify  hU 
denial  of  the  supernatural  or  his  aversion  to  the  miracidous. 
From  the  very  beginning  he  professes  his  adherence  to  that 
view  of  the  world  which,  “  renouncing  all  supernatural  sources 
of  help,  throws  men  on  their  own  resources,  and  those  of  the 
natural  order  of  things  ”  (p.  ix.).  He  proclaims  his  inten¬ 
tion  “  to  remove  the  delusive  belief  in  miracles  as  the  chief 
stumbling-block  in  the  antique  forms  of  religion  ”  (p.  xviii). 
When  we  inquire  on  what  grounds  he  considers  himself 
justified  in  so  doing,  we  are  merely  told  that  one  can  “soon 
discover  thus  much  about  our  Gospels,  that  neither  one  nor  all 
of  them  possess  sufficient  historical  certainty  to  compel  our 
reason  to  give  up  its  liberty  so  far  as  to  believe  in  miracles  ” 
(p.  XV.).  “  All  philosophical  systems  which  deserve  the  name, 

agree  in  one  conclusion  ”  \i.e.  the  negation  of  the  miraculous 
(p. -147)].  This  he  boldly  asserts,  though  surely  well  aware 
that  many  great  philosophers  and  naturalists  have  defended, 
and  still  are  defending,  miracles  (cf.  p.  289).  But  Strauss  is 
satisfied  with  his  own  assertions,  and  considers  himself  exempt 
from  the  trouble  of  further  examining  into  his  principles. 
For  if,  he  urges,  we  allow  of  miracles  in  the  times  of  primitive 
Christianity,  we  must  concede  that  they  are  possible  in  any 
other  religious  region.  Just  as  if  there  were  not  an  immense 
intrinsic  distinction  between  the  two.  Thus  one  problem  only 
remains  for  Strauss,  how  the  miraculous,  this  “  foreign  element 
vdiicli  repels  all  historical  treatment,”  may  be  removed  from 
the  gospel  narratives  ?  The  only  solution  offered  is  the 
mythical  hypothesis. 

This  therefore  is  merely  a  means  for  getting  rid  of  the 
miraculous ;  as  Strauss  himself  expresses  it,  “  an  apparatus 
for  evaporating  miracles  into  myths”  (p.  159).  All  the 
labour  expended  on  it  becomes  aimless  and  worthless,  if  the 
miraculous  be — as  we  have  seen  in  the  last  lecture — well 
grounded.  All  the  more  should  this  question  have  been 
thoroughly  examined  into  by  Strauss,  instead  of  which  he 
expects  us  simply  to  presuppose  its  impossibility. 

We  now  see  how  Strauss’  whole  hypothesis,  like  all  other 
pantheistic  systems,  hegs  the  question,  and  postulates  what  most 


400  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT.  VI. 


requires  proof.  This  was  the  case,  as  we  have  seen,  witli 
Spinoza,  and  with  those  deniers  of  the  miraculous  who,  like 
Strauss,  have  made  the  laws  of  nature  an  argument  against  the 
possibility  of  miracles.  The  fact  that  the  Gospels  contain  so 
much  that  is  miraculous,  is  for  Strauss  the  fundamental  proof 
of  their  mythical  character.  He  is  not  driven  to  this  conclu¬ 
sion  by  historical  investigations,  but  simply  by  a  naturalistic 
presupposition.  He  asks  whether  the  Christian  religion  and 
its  historical  records  are  in  agreement  with  our  modern  philo¬ 
sophy,  or  whether  they  are  not  rather  proved  to  be  unliistorical 
by  their  contradiction  to  it.  It  was  the  standpoint  of  the 
old  world  to  regard  as  miraculous  any  unusual  alterations  in 
the  world  of  nature  and  of  man ;  but  our  modern  age  knows 
that  all  things  are  connected  in  one  great  chain  of  cause  and 
effect,  and  that  this  chain  cannot  be  broken  without  being 
destroyed.  This  it  is  which  we  have  shown  to  be  a  complete 
delusion.  The  Jews  are  supposed  to  have  had  no  historical 
consciousness,  because  they  believed  in  the  miraculous.  Either, 
true  historical  perception,  and  no  miracles ;  or,  an  acceptance 
of  the  miraculous,  and  unliistorical,  simply  dogmatic  position — 
this  is  the  fundamental  dilemma  which  Strauss  places  before 
his  readers.  But  what  gives  him  any  right  to  do  so  ?  Nothing 
but  his  own  presupposition,  his  naturalistic  bias  wliicli  makes 
our  ordinary  everyday  life  the  criterion  of  all  reality !  For 
in  the  last  resort  the  cardinal  question  may  prove  to  be, 
whether  the  miracles  themselves  are  not  historical,  and  their 
denial  utterly  unhistorical — a  mere  philosophical  delusion. 
Is  it,  we  ask,  a  sign  of  “  historical  consciousness for  a  man 
not  to  give  the  old  records  a  thorough  and  unbiassed  exami¬ 
nation  according  to  their  inward  and  outward  credibility,  but 
to  approach  them  with  the  settled  axiom,  that  there  can  ^e  no 
such  thing  as  a  miracle :  thus  condemning  beforehand  all  that 
does  not  agree  with  this  axiom  ?  By  so  doing,  Strauss  plainly 
shows  that  he  is  no  true  historian,  which,  indeed,  no  thorough¬ 
going  disciple  of  Hegel  ever  can  be.  He  searches  the  records, 
not  in  order  to  find  out  what  they  are  and  ivhat  they  contain, 
hut  in  order  to  extract  proofs  from  their  miraculous  narratives 
and  individual  discrepancies,  that  they  arc  not  what  they  profess 
to  he,  viz.  not  history,  hut  myths ;  in  other  ivords,  he  goes  to  ivorh 
in  order  to  get  proofs  for  his  assumption.  On  such  a  iifethod 


LECT.  VI.]  STRAUSS’  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.”  401 

even  a  critic  like  Scliwegler  remarks :  The  attempt  to  solve 
historical  problems  by  means  of  philosopliical  categories  must 
always  fail ;  Strauss  has  sullied  the  purity  of  historical  research 
by  importing  into  the  critique  of  the  Gospels  his  presupposi¬ 
tion  as  to  the  impossibility  of  the  miraculous  under  the  guise 
of  a  philosophical  postulate.  Hence  it  is  that  in  the  works 
both  of  Strauss  and  Schenkel  we  find  the  same  subjective 
caprice  in  eliminating  the  spurious  from  the  genuine,  only 
that  Strauss  makes  a  more  consistent  use  of  the  myth,  as 
being  the  means  which  he  has  selected  for  this  purpose. 

This  extreme  caprice  is  palpably  evident,  as  soon  as  w’e 
look  at  the  method  more  closely.  In  the  most  paltry  and 
exaggerated  manner  he  scrapes  together  differences  in  the 
narratives  of  the  evangelists,  in  order  to  show  their  legendary 
character,  apparently  proceeding  from  the  assumption  that  the 
Gospels  were  intended  to  be  exact  chronological  biographies, 
which  is  far  from  being  the  case.  Small  differences  and 
omissions  are  magnified  into  great  contradictions.  E.g.  the 
statement  of  St.  John,  that  Nicodemus  brings  about  100  pounds 
of  myrrh  and  aloes  to  embalm  the  body  of  Clirist,  and  of  the 
Synoptics,  that  the  women  buy  spices,  is  held  up  as  a  great 
discrepancy  and  proof  of  the  unhistorical  nature  of  both 
accounts  (p.  598  ff.),  because  the  former  quantity  would  have 
been  more  than  enough.  Just  as  if  love  would  reckon  in 
this  strict  way  in  the  case  of  a  dear  one  who  was  departed  ! 
On  the  other  hand,  great  differences,  which  clearly  show  that 
two  distinct  events  are  referred  to,  are  toned  down  into  small 
shadings,  in  order  to  prove  that  the  legend  is  relating  the 
same  matter  in  two  different  forms.  Thus,  for  instance  (in 
imitation  of  Jhe  feat  first  performed  by  Zeller),  Lazarus  of 
Bethany  is  identical  with  Lazarus  in  the  parable,  Luke  xvi. 
(p.  479  et  ss.) ;  the  anointing  of  Christ  in  Bethany  (John  xii.) 
is  one  with  that  in  the  house  of  Simon,  Luke  vii.  (pp.  429 
et  ss.) ;  so,  too,  the  stilling  of  the  storm  and  the  walking  on  the 
sea  (pp.  489  et  ss.),  and  the  two  miracles  of  feeding  (pp.  499 
et  ss.),  etc. 

In  truth,  Strauss  is  a  master  in  the  art  of  straining  out 
gnats  and  swallowing  camels.  Eepetitions  of  words  are  as 
suspicious  to  him  as  those  of  works,  just  as  if  it  were  not 
often  necessary  to  repeat  certain  important  truths  several 


402  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHEIS'f.  [lECT.  VL 

times,  in  order  to  impress  them  on  the  weak  and  slow  com¬ 
prehension  of  man.  If  an  evangelist  omits  to  mention  some 
particular,  he  is  put  down  as  not  knowing  it,  and  this  is 
adduced  as  proof  of  a  myth.  It  one  of  them  describes  an 
incident  exactly,  this  is  a  progress  in  the  growth  of  the  legend. 
If  a  narrative  is  simple  and  short,  it  is  “  entirely  in  confor¬ 
mity  with  the  spirit  of  the  original  popular  legend  ;  ”  if  it 
goes  into  details,  this  exactitude  is  the  clearest  proof  of  a 
mythical  tendency.  Poor  evangelists !  whatever  they  do  is 
wrong ! 

The  way  in  which  an  intention  is  scented  out  in  the  inven¬ 
tion  of  the  smallest  and  most  trifling  features  cf  a  story  is 
often  perfectly  ridiculous.  Thus,  in  the  circumstance  that 
John  outruns  Peter  while  both  are  hastening  to  the  grave  of 
Christ,  Strauss  detects  an  artfully  contrived  preferment  of 
John  to  Peter,  an  exaltation  of  the  spiritual  Johannean  Chris¬ 
tianity  above  the  Petrine  carnality!!  (p.  605.)  We  cannot 
be  surprised  at  frivolity  wdien  a  man  looks  through  the  spec¬ 
tacles  of  intentional  invention  in  this  manner.  In  several 
places  Strauss  has  been  unable  to  resist  this  temptation,  as,  exj., 
at  p.  380,  where,  in  connection  with  the  flight  of  our  Saviour 
into  Egypt,  he  remarks,  “  Once  more  a  correct  impression  as 
to  the  origin  of  the  gospel  narrative  has  led  the  ecclesiastical 
legend  to  bring  in  the  ass  from  the  Mosaic  myth  ”  (cf.  pp.  409, 
449,  455,  476,  513,  610). 

It  may  be  quite  true  that  the  events  of  the  Hew  Testa¬ 
ment  contain  a  reflection  of  what  had  gone  before  in  the  Old. 
But  for  all  that,  this  constant  derivation  of  the  Hew  Testament 
narratives,  down  to  their  smallest  details,  from  incidents  in  the 
lives  of  Old  Testament  worthies,  is  simply  a  monstrous  mis¬ 
apprehension  of  the  Avise  and  holy  plan  of  the  divine  kingdom. 
Why  should  what  is  later  have  been  invented  or  copied  from 
what  is  earlier  because  it  bears  some  resemblance  to  it  ?  Why 
should  not  God  be  able  to  carry  on  His  kingdom  towards  its 
consummation  in  a  kind  of  rhythmic  historical  movement,  in 
which  certain  events  happening  at  difterent  times  and  under 
different  laws  should  yet  distinctly  correspond  ?  It  is  ju.st  in 
this  that  we  see  the  beauty  and  Avisdom  of  His  government, 
of  Avhich,  it  is  true,  Pantheism  neither  has  nor  can  liave  any 
notion. 


LECT.  VI.]  STRAUSS’  “LIFE  OF  CHRIST,”  403 

We  now  come  to  tlie  principal  question  as  to  the  ‘possi¬ 
bility  of  the  formation  of  i.oyths.  In  this  respect  it  is  not 
difficult  to  point  out  a  number  of  historical  and  psychological 
impossibilities  and  internal  contradictions  in  Strauss’  positions. 

He  will  scarcely  deny  that  the  soil  in  which  myths  grow 
is  the  childhood  of  nations.  How  come  myths  to  spring 
up  so  luxuriantly  among  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ, 
destitute  as  their  nationality  was  of  all  that  is  childlike, 
and  well-nigh  arrived  at  the  hoary  goal  of  its  development  ? 
Are  we  to  believe  that  after  prophecy  had  so  long  been 
silent,  and  at  a  time  when  the  chosen  people  and  the  world 
in  general  were  in  a  state  of  spiritless  languor,  the  poetic 
fancy  of  a  few  poor  Jews  should  suddenly  have  made  this 
mighty  effort  ?  The  possibility  of  this  is  only  conceivable  on 
the  supposition  that  there  did  exist  some  such  personage  as 
the  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  But  we  will  pursue  the  inquiry  a 
little  further.  The  childhood  of  nations  is  their- prehistoric  age, 
and  this  age  it  is  in  which  the  formation  of  myths  invaricdily 
takes  place}  It  is  before  the  contrast  has  been  realized  between 
the  ideal  and  the  actual  worlds,  when  the  spirit  of  man  is  still 
engrossed  in  the  unconscious  life  of  nature, — in  a  word,  in  its 
childhood, — that  a  nation  dreams  out  its  mythology.  But  as 
soon  as  reflection,  reason,  and  conscience  awake,  the  mythical 
world  begins  to  vanish.  See,  e.g.,  how  Plato  rejects  or  spiritual¬ 
izes  the  Greek  myths.  In  the  clear  daylight  of  historical 
consciousness  the  formation  of  myths  comes  to  an  end.  Some 
fletitious  anecdotes  and  legends  may  still  attach  themselves  to 
the  persons  of  a  few  great  men,  but  the  formation  of  a  whole 
system  of  myths  is  inconceivable  in  a  historic  age.  And  if 
we  contemplate  the  age  in  which  our  Gospels  were  composed, 
here  assuredly  ice  find  ourselves  in  a  historic,  and  not  a  pre¬ 
historic  period.  Ileflection  has  long  since  awakened.  Indeed, 
it  is  an  age  of  great  intellectual  activity,  and  even  of  scepticism 
(cf.  Pilate).  ]\Ien  have  long  since  come  to  regard  the  Greek 
myths  as  the  playful  products  of  a  poetic  fancy.  Is  this  a 
period  favourable  to  the  formation  of  myths  ? 

Livy  calls  uniting  “  the  faithful  guardian  of  history.”  And 
accordingly,  we  find  myths  only  amongst  yations  unacquainted 
with  the  art  of  writing,  ami  consequently  ivithout  either  history 
’  Cf.  IIcLliii^er,  Apologle  des  Clrifitenthums,  i.  2,  p.  236  fl. 


404  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT.  VL 

or  chronology.  How  different  was  the  case  in  the  apostolic 
age !  Not  only  had  Greece  and  Home  long  possessed  their 
great  historians,  and  Egypt  its  Manetho,  hut  even  Palestine 
had  its  Flavius  Josephus.  Everywhere  there  was  a  lively 
historical,  and  literary  activity,  and  a  quick  historical  con¬ 
sciousness.  How  come  invths  to  he  formed  in  an  age  like  this? 

The  improhahility  increases  when  we  comixire  the  character 
of  the  gospel  narratives  with  that  of  myths  in  other  quarters. 
Consider  “  the  myths  of  Greece  and  Egypt,  hovering  as  they 
do  between  memory  and  invention,  between  heaven  and  earth, 
between  God  and  matter,  between  the  natural  and  unnatural ; 
consider  the  gigantic,  bloody,  monstrous  fables  concerning 
the  fantastic  gods  of  India ;  consider  the  dark,  mist-woven 
forms  of  the  old  Germanic  and  Scandinavian  mythology, 
without  fixed  outlines  or  clearly-defined  personalities ;  ”  and 
contrast  with  these  the  clear,  calm,  holy,  self-contained,  self- 
consistent,  and  well-defined  figure  of  Christ  in  the  Gospels, 
and  say  wherein  lies  the  slightest  resemblance  hetivecn  them  ? 
There,  we  have  the  shadowy  maze  of  prehistoric  times ;  here, 
palpable  bright  reality  on  historical  soil ; — there,  heathen 
deiiication  of  nature ;  here,  a  revelation  of  the  one  personal 
God ; — there,  the  instinctive  action  of  natural  religion  and 
natural  life  ;  here,  holy  and  solemn  works  and  w'ords  proceeding 
from  a  personal  mind  and  will. 

IMoreover,  as  being  a  reflection  of  the  life  of  nature,  myths 
everywhere  bear  a  local  and  national  impress.  According  to 
the  characteristics  of  people  and  country,  they  are  differently 
developed  in  gladsome  Greece,  in  arid  India,  and  in  the  in¬ 
hospitable  North.  The  purport  of  the  Gospels,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  universally  human ;  it  is  adaptable  to  every  nation, 
every  clime,  every  stage  of  time  or  cultivation.  So  little  is  it 
exclusively  Jewish,  that  it  constantly  contradicts  the  prejudices 
of  the  nation  from  which  it  has  originated.  The  portrait  of 
Christ  in  the  Gospels,  instead  of  being  that  of  a  typical  Jewish 
teacher,  is  entirely  opposed  to  what  such  an  one  was  considered 
to  be.^ 

^  Cf.  Wiseman,  Zusammenliano  zivisclim  Wlasenscliaft  «.  Offaibanniri,  p.  228 
(Connection  between  Science  and  Revealed  Religion,  London  1836,  Leet.  IV., 
pp.  255  et  ss.).  ■  For  a  description  of  wise  tenchers  in  Israel  at  that  time,  vide 
Sepp,  Leben  Chrinli,  ii.  p.  47. 


LECT.  VL]  STEAUSS-  “  life  of  CHEIST.”  405 

Further,  it  has  been  objected  with  truth,  that  myths  know 
nothing  of  chronology  ;  they  are  prone  to  mix  up  times,  places, 
and  persons.  In  the  Gospels,  on  the  contrary,  from  Luke  i. 

'  5  onwards,  we  find  a  series  of  exact  data  as  to  times,  places, 
and  persons,  and  a  continuous  reference  to  contemporaneous 
Homan  and  Jewish  history.  In  the  face  of  these  historical 
relations,  and  of  the  inward  opposition  between  mythical  and 
gospel  narratives,  must  it  not,  from  the  very  beginning,  be  a 
vain  undertaking  to  “  evaporate  ”  the  latter  into  myths  ?  But 
Strauss  quietly  passes  by  this  important  intrinsic  distinction, 
with  the  remark  that  “  the  formation  of  Christian  myths  must 
be  put  on  the  same  footing  with  the  corresponding  process  in 
all  other  religions”  (p.  153). 

To  all  this  we  add  another  difficultv  of  considerable  weio-ht, 
viz.  that  the  formation  of  myths  is  always  a  lengtliy  process, 
requiring  considcraljlc  time.  Homer’s  mythical  account  of  the 
fall  of  Troy  did  not  appear  till  some  200  years  after  the  event. 
But  the  oldest  of  our  Gospels  appeared,  as  we  have  seen,  before 
the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  i.e.  hardly  a  generation  after  the  death 
of  Christ.  Therefore  a  portion  of  these  myths  at  least  must 
have  taken  their  rise  amongst  the  disciples  themselves ;  nor 
does  Strauss  deny  that  “  the  resurrection  myth  ”  in  particular 
was  believed  and  preached  by  the  apostles  themselves.  Were 
these  good  people  so  utterly  destitute  of  all  historical  sense 
and  feeling  ?  Had  they  not  been  taught  by  Christ  Himself, 
in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  in  the  discourses  which  Strauss 
acknowledges  as  genuine,  to  distinguish  clearly  between  divine 
revelation  in  the  law  and  the  subsequent  human  additions, — 
between  wdiat  had  been  said  by  them  of  old  time  and  what 
is  written  as  the  truth  of  God  ?  Was  not  this  calculated 
to  implant  some  historical  feeling  in  the  disciples,  and  to 
sharpen  their  perception  of  the  difference  between  firmly  estab- 
li,shed  truths  and  human  fictions  ?  Or  if  the  disciples  were 
so  simple  and  superstitious  as  not  to  be  able  to  understand 
their  Master,  is  it  not  incomprehensible  how  He  came  to 
choose  such  inefficient  men,  “  who  would  have  spoilt  His  work 
entirely  if  it  had  not  luckily  been  saved  by  the  unexpected 
conversion  and  activity  of  the  Apostle  Paul  ”  ?  But  what  an 
unworthy  idea  does  this  give  us  of  the  progress  of  man’s  his¬ 
tory,  “  if  Christianity,  the  most  powerful  factor  in  the  v  orld’s 


40 G  MODEIIN  ACCOUXTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CUEIST.  [lECT.  VI. 

history,  is  made  to  depend  on  an  unforeseen  and  incidental 
fact !  ”  ^ 

Or  are  we  to  suppose  that  the  later  evangelists  are  the  chief 
culprits  in  this  mythical  and  unhistorical  introduction,  or, 
in  plain  English,  this  lying  cheat?  ‘To  this  we  reply  by 
the  old  question  which  we  have  already  put  to  the  rationalists. 
How  can  these  biblical  records,  with  their  truthful  spirit  and 
pure  morality,  and  the  glorious  ideal  which  they  present  to  us, 
have  their  origin  in  mere  lies  ?  And  how  could  these  foolish 
writers,  “  who  were  so  strongly  biassed  by  their  Jewish  pre¬ 
judices,  draw  a  picture  containing  none  of  the  traditional 
features  common  to  great  Jewish  rabbis,  but  revealing  a  moral 
dignity  and  purity  so  great  that  centuries  upon  centuries  have 
bowed  down  before  it,  and  from  its  Original  received  their 
life  ?  ”  “  My  friend,”  even  Eousseau  cried,  full  of  admiration 

for  the  portrait  of  Christ  in  the  Gospels,  “  such  things  cannot 
be  invented  !  Never  could  Jewish  writers  have  fabricated 
discourses  and  moral  teachings  such  as  these.  The  Gospel 
contains  so  great,  so  astonishing  and  perfectly  inimitable  traits 
of  truth,  that  its  inventor  would  be  even  more  wonderful  than 
its  Hero.”  *  Assuredly,  I  appeal  wdth  confidence  to  the  un¬ 
biassed  judgment  of  my  readers.  Is  it  possible  or  conceivable 
that  sivfid  and  imperfect  men  should  beget  the  thought  of  so 
mnjestic  and  stainless  a  personage,  of  so  holy  and  Godlike  a 
life,  and  should  carry  it  out  in  this  vivid  and  lifelike  manner, 
not  having  received  it  as  an  impression  from  without  ?  This 
would  be  a  miracle  more  perplexing  and  unheard  of  than  any 
of  those  which  Strauss  rejects,  and  the  whole  issue  would  only 
be  transferred  from  the  person  of  Christ  to  that  of  His  his¬ 
torian  ;  in  other  words,  we  should  by  no  means  escape  the  mira¬ 
culous.  The  old  truth  still  stands;  “  the  ^jortrait  of  Christ  which 
is  delivered  to  us;  the  faultlessly  perfect  Original  of  God-filled 
humanity  cannot  have  been  invented,  since  that  which  has  never 

*  Cf.  Liithardt,  uhi  siq).  p.  19. 

^  Roiissea;;,  Emile,  1.  iv.  pp.  109-111.  Goethe,  too,  in  his  Gespriiche  mit 
Eckermann  (iii.  p.  371),  says:  “I  consider  the  Gospels  decidedly  genuine,  for 
they  are  penetrated  by  the  reflection  of  a  viojesty  Avhieh  proceeded  from  the  per¬ 
son  of  Christ;  and  this  is  divine,  if  ever  divinity  appeared  upon  the  earth.” 
Cf.  also  SchalT,  Die  Person  Jesii  Christi  (nerv  edit.,  p.  302),  and  esjiecially  the 
reinarkalde  series  of  testimonies  from  seejaie.s  ami  opponents  for  the  character  of 
Clirist,  pp.  215-336  [English  ediUon  (Bo.ston,  1865),  pp.  251  et  ss  ], 


LECT.  VI.]  STEAUSS’  “  LIFE  OF  CrirJST.”  407 

entered  into  the  heart  of  man  as  an  impression  cannot  proceed 
from  it  as  a  lifelike  fancy  picture.”  ^  And  does  not  the  frag¬ 
mentary  character  of  tlie  gospel  records  give  us  the  impression 
that  the  narratives  themselves  were  not  capable  of  deline¬ 
ating  this  sublime  Personage  in  an  adequate  manner,  and  that 
the  reality  must  have  gone  far  beyond  what  is  told  us  ?  (ct. 
John  xxi.  25.) 

If  the  primitive  Christian  Church  invented  most  of  Christ’s 
miracles,  and  made  Him  something  quite  different  from  what  He 
really  was,  lohy  did  not  unhelievcrs  on  every  hand  protest  against 
this  ?  Why  did  they  not  appeal  to  the  surviving  contem¬ 
poraries  of  Jesus,  or  at  least  to  their  own  immediate  ancestors, 
many  of  whom  must  have  seen  Him,  in  disproof  of  all  these 
miracles  ?  Hot  even  the  most  fanatical  opponents  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  such  as  the  Pharisees,  or  later  on,  Celsus,  Porphyry, 
Julian,  and  others,  ever  impugned  the  truth  of  the  miracles 
related  in  the  Gospels.  Strauss  tries  to  evade  this  very  evident 
objection  by  asking  how  the  unbelief  of  Israel  is  to  be  accounted 
for  if  Christ  really  did  so  many  miracles  ?  But  he  entirely 
overlooks  the  moral  obstacles  to  faith.  Ho  miracles,  nor  any 
other  works  of  God,  ever  absolutely  compel  man  to  believe ; 
they  are  and  they  will  be  like  our  Lord  Himself, — a  sign  which 
may  be  spoken  against,  clear  enough  for  him  who  is  willing 
to  see,  but  dark  enough  for  him  who  will  not  see  nor  believe. 
Else  faith  would  cease  to  be  a  moral  act, — a  taking  hold  of 
the  invisible :  it  would  cease  to  be  faith. 

Again,  we  ask,  is  it  not  probable  that  those  who  joined  the 
new  doctrine,  before  they  took  this  step,  made  some  examina¬ 
tion  into  these  miraculous  narratives  ?  How  could  a  man 
break  off  all  conneetion  with  his  past  Judaism  or  heathenism, 
without  having  in  some  degree  satisfied  himself  that  he  was 
not  grasping  after  a  shadow,  but  after  living  truth  and  histori¬ 
cal  real  it}'  ?  Was  it  not  in  the  interest  of  faith  itself  to  hnow 
something  certain  about  Christ,  in  order  to  be  able  to  say,  “  I 
know  in  whom  I  have  believed  ”  ?  (2  Tim.  i.  12  ;  cf.  Luke  i.  4, 
John  XX.  31,  1  Cor.  xi.  23,  xv.  14-32.)  And  was  not  there 
a  possibility  of  this,  because  the  Christian  Church  gradually 
developed  from  a  certain  point  without  essential  interruptions, 

*  Cf.  Beysclilag,  Christolo^le,  p.  15  ;  also  Weiss,  Seeks  Vorirage  iiber  die 
Person  Clmsti, 


408  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT.  VL 


and  thus  it' was  easy  to  trace  the  narratives  of  Christ  to  their 
soiM'ce  and  test  them  there  ?  How  could  the  Messiahship  of 
Christ  be  proved  to  any  one  without  first  proving  what  He  had 
done  ?  The  first  thing  in  the  vocation  of  tlie  apostles  surely 
was  to  testify  of  the  works  of  Christ.  Where,  then,  unless  the 
apostles  were  intentional  deceivers,  is  there  room  for  the  forma¬ 
tion  of  myths  ? 

And  supposing  that  some  myths  had  formed  in  the  Church, 
must  they  not  soon  have  been  rejected  by  the  apostles  or  their 
disciples,  if  we  take  account  of  the  intimate  connection  which 
the  Acts  and  the  Epistles  proved  to  have  existed  amongst 
the  primitive  Churches  Strauss  prudently  ignores  this  con¬ 
nection,  and  speaks  as  though  every  Church  had  remained 
isolated,  and  had  continued  to  adorn  the  tradition  of  Christ  in 
whatever  way  it  pleased. 

Strauss  is  constantly  invoking  the  enthusiastic  superstition 
of  the  yirimitive  age  as  the  source  of  myths.  But  why  did  not 
this  enthusiastic  superstition  adorn  other  persons — e.g.  the 
highly-esteemed  Baptist — with  miraculous  garlands?  It  is  by 
no  means  permissible  to  place  the  apostolic  age  on  a  level 
in  this  respect  with  the  following  period,  which  stands  most 
palpably  below  it  in  spiritual,  moral,  and  intellectual  power. 
But  that  later  Judaism  as  such — and  Jewish  Christians  were 
the  w’riters  of  the  New  Testament — icas  not  fond  of  miracles, 
is  clearly  shown  by  their  rare  occurrence  in  the  lives  of  the 
great  prophets  from  Isaiah  downwaards.  Only  where  Creator 
and  creature  are  commingled — as  in  the  case  of  heathenism — 
do  we  find  a  fertile  soil  for  miracle  mania.  But  where  both 
are  kept  so  entirely  distinct  as  in  Judaism,  and  “  the  human 
subject  is  penetrated  with  the  feeling  of  God’s  greatness  and 
its  own  nothingness,  it  cannot  expect  that  miracles  should 
take  place  every  instant.  It  will  look  on  them  as  something 
extraordinary,  and  expect  them  seldom  to  occur.” 

Tliis  is  confirmed  by  the  gospel  history.  Was  not,  t.g.,  the 
strict  examination  of  witnesses  in  the  judicial  inquiry  respect¬ 
ing  the  man  who  was  born  blind  (John  ix.)  a  token  of  histori¬ 
cal  sense  and  sober  inquiry  ?  The  age  cannot,  after  all,  have 
been  so  utterly  destitute  of  those  qualities  ;  and  should  the 
Christian  Church  alone,  of  all  other  bodies,  have  been  without 
members  who  were  capable  of  such  examination  ?  Not  even 


LECT.  YI.]  STEAUSS’  “  LIFE  OF  CHFJST."  409 

tlie  Churches  of  the  second  century  Y"ere  entirely  void  of 
critical  perception.  Where  there  was  a  question  as  to  tlie 
genuineness  of  certain  writings,  they  could  make  very  exact 
inquiries.  Certain  Fathers  of  the  second  century  made 
journeys  on  purpose  to  get  exact  information  from  churches 
founded  by  the  apostles  about  some  disputed  writings,  in 
order  afterwards  to  appeal  confidently  to  this  information  in 
their  discussions  with  heretics.  A  presbyter  in  Asia  Minor 
who  had  composed  an  aj)ocryphal  book  entitled.  Histories  of 
Paul  and  Thelda,  was  convicted,  and  confessed  his  fraud.  The 
Church  in  Philippi  wished  to  make  a  collection  of  the  letters 
of  Ignatius  (f  108),  and  for  this  purpose  they  wrote  to  Poly¬ 
carp,  Bishop  of  Smyrna,  begging  for  his  assistance,  in  order 
that  the  matter  might  be  more  certain.^  Are  not  these  proofs 
for  the  existence  of  a  sober  historical  investigation  in  that  age, 
and  do  they  not  at  the  same  time  witness  favourably  to  the 
genuineness  of  our  Gospels  ?  And  shall  we  not  suppose  that 
this  spirit  of  critical  investigation  and  inquiry  was  active  as 
regards  the  oral  tradition  of  the  words  and  Avorks  of  Christ  in 
the  Churches,  especially  in  those  of  the  first  century,  where 
such  inquiry  Avas  considerably  easier  ? 

But  the  historical  difficulty  changes  into  a  still  greater 
‘psychological  obstacle.  Must  not  the  enthusiastic  fancies  of  these 
primitive  Christians,  we  ask,  have  been  somewhat  cooled  down 
and  sobered  ivhen  the  persecutions  began  ?  What  motive  could 
they  have  for  holding  to  their  delusion  in  the  fare  oj  tribulation 
and  death,  and  in  exposing  themselves  to  contumely,  mochcry,  and 
hatred  from  Jews  and  Gentiles  for  the  sake  of  their  imaginary 
dreams?  But  this  supposition  of  extravagant  enthusiasm 
amongst  the  primitive  Christians  is  entirely  incorrect.  Beside 
the  Old  Testament,  they  received  edification  from  certain  of  the 
apostolic  epistles,  especially  those  of  St.  Paul.  But  do  these 
or  any  other  of  the  NeAv  Testament  epistles  give  us  the  im¬ 
pression  that  their  Avriters  Avere  extravagant  enthusiasts,  or 
sharp-AAutted  forgers  ?  Does  not  the  clear,  simple,  temperate, 
humble  style  of  these  writings  make  just  the  opposite  impres¬ 
sion  on  every  unbiassed  mind  ?  Does  the  reading  of  them 
have  an  intoxicating  or  a  sobering  effect  ? 

And  what  do  these  apostolical  AAU’itings  tell  us  ?  Let  us  look 
*  Cf.  Stirm,  Apologia  des  Christenthums,  2(1  ed.,  p.  25. 


410  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHEIST.  [lECT.  VI. 

at  some  of  them  upon  whose  genuineness  there  has  never 
rested  the  shadow  of  a  doubt :  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  to  the 
Komans  and  Corinthians.  Does  not  St.  Paul  here  speak  of 
miraculous  powers  in  the  Church  (1  Cor.  xii.  10-30)  ?  Does 
he  not  say  of  himself,  that  he  brought  the  heathen  into  the 
obedience  of  faith  “  through  mighty  signs  and  wonders  ” 
l^Pom.  XV.  19),  and  that  amongst  the  Corinthians  he  accom¬ 
plished  the  “  signs  of  an  apostle  ”  with  “  wonders  and  mighty 
deeds  ”  (2  Cor.  xii.  12  ;  cf.  Gal.  iii.  5  and  Heb.  ii.  4), — doubt¬ 
less,  that  ivS,  miracles,  especially  of  healing  ?  These  passages 
are  a  sore  perplexity  for  the  deniers  of  the  miraculous,  for 
here  there  is  no  time  for  the  formation  of  myths  intervening 
between  the  facts  themselves  and  their  confessedly  genuine 
records  ;  seeing  that  the  miracles  themselves  are  held  up  to 
the  original  witnesses  of  them  at  Corinth  !  The  only  resource 
left  to  Strauss  is  to  touch  on  these  important  historical  data  as 
lightly  as  possible,  and  then  to  take  a  leaf  out  of  the  rational¬ 
ist’s  book,^  by  reducing  these  miracles  to  “  merely  psychical, 
or  even  imaginary  cures,  which  were  the  natural  result  of 
religious  excitement  in  this  circle”  (p.  268).  The  visions  of 
a  man  like  St.  Paul,  who  was  in  perfect  spiritual  health,  and 
possessed  of  bodily  vigour  which  could  endure  the  greatest 
hardships,  he  accounts  for  by  “  convulsive,  perhaps  epileptic 
fits”  (p.  302)  !  Such  are  the  shifts  to  which  anti-miraculous 
delineators  of  primitive  Christianity  are  put. 

We  now  see  how  greatly  the  miracidous  narratives  in  the 
Gospels  are  confirmed  by  these  sayings  of  an  apostle.  If  signs 
and  wonders  were  performed  by  an  apostle  in  Corinth,  may 
we  not,  nay,  must  we  not,  conclude  that  similar  mighty  deeds 
were  likewise  done  by  Christ,  or  rather  that  His  life  and  work 
were  accompanied  by  still  greater  and  more  numerous  miracles? 
For  the  disciple  is  not  above  his  Master ;  and  as  by  the  evan¬ 
gelists  (Matt.  X.  1,  Luke  ix.  1),  so,  too,  by  St.  Paul  (Piom. 
XV.  18),  the  apostolic  authority  and  power  is  always  traced 
back  to  Christ  as  its  source.  Even  the  belief  of  the  apostles 
themselves,  that  they  performed  miracles,  is  utterly  incompre¬ 
hensible,  unless  they — and  not  only  the  later  Churches — were 

^  So,  too,  does  Baur ;  but  still  lie  coutesses  that  even  though  Paul  may  have  had 
an  ecstatic  element  in  his  nature,  yet  this  was  kept  so  strictly  in  suhiection  by  the 
clear  rationality  ol  his  self-consciousness,  that  it  could  never  pass  into  extravagance. 


LECT.  vl]  sthauss’ “life  of  cueist.”  411 

persuaded  that  He,  the  infinitely  greater  One,  had  preceded 
them  in  so  doinof. 

O 

Another  important  argument  against  the  mythical  hypothesis 
and  its  constant  reference  to  the  extravagant  spirit  of  the 
primitive  Christian  age,  lies  in  the  simple,  unadorned,  and 
chaste  character  of  the  miracles  themselves.  If  the,  spirit  of 
extravagant  enthusiasm  had  ivoven  a  garland  of  myths  around 
the  life  of  Christ,  it  would  have  made  Him  perform  miracles 
quite  different  from  those  wdiicli  the  Gospels  relate  of  Him.  There 
would  have  appeared  “  signs  from  heaven  ”  (Matt.  xvi.  1  et  ss.), 
changes  in  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  all  other  kinds  of  fantastic 
and  extravagant  portents,  and  in  the  end  we  should  have  had 
a  picture  of  Christ  quite  different  to  that  which  the  Gospels 
give.  The  case  would  have  been  the  same  as  in  some  of  the 
later  apocryphal  gospels,  which  really  do  make  Christ,  as  a 
child,  perform  so  many  aimless  and  ridiculous  miracles. 
Instead  of  this,  look  at  the  modest  measure  of  the  miracles 
performed  by  Christ  and  the  apostles  (mostly  miracles  of 
healing),  their  constant  holy  purpose,  their  earnest  and  soler 
eharacter.  This  is  not  the  impress  of  an  extravagant  fancy. 
Strauss  is  prudent  enough  from  the  very  beginning  to  place 
the  biblical  miracles  on  a  level  with  those  of  heathen  mytho¬ 
logy,  magic,  and  jugglery  ^  (pp.  147,  455,  etc.),  thus  making 
the  former  fall  before  the  same  criticism  as  the  latter.  Bub 
this  is  (as  we  have  already  shown,  cf.  pp.  318  and  323)  simply 
an  act  of  violence  which  entirely  ignores  the  deep  internal 
distinction  between  the  hiblical  and  the  apocryphal  miracles. 

And  how  are  the  difficulties  multiplied  when  we  consider 
the  external  and  internal  contradictions  contained  in  Strauss’ 
portrait  of  the  Person  of  Christ !  Here  we  are  utterly  at  a  loss 
to  account  for  the  formation  of  myths.  Strauss’  view  of  the 
incarnation  of  God  in  Christ  is,  as  before,  the  pantheistic 
Hegelian.  According  to  Scripture,  “  in  Christ  dwelleth  all 
the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily  ”  (Col.  ii.  9)  ;  but  according 
to  Hegel,  God,  i.e.  the  “  Absolute  Idea,”  can  never  appear  in 

*  Tints  Strauss  compares  the  healing  of  blind  men  by  Christ  with  a  juggling 
miracle  j)ertormed  by  Vespasian  betore  the  populace  in  Ale.xandria  (pp.  269, 
429).  But  it  has  been  proved  by  P.  Cassel  (in  his  pamphlet,  Le  roi  te  touche, 
1864),  that  this  performance  of  Vespasian’s  is  to  be  attributed  to  his  contact 
with  Jewi.^h  thought ;  in  other  words,  that  it  is  an  echo  of  Christ’s  miracles,  and 
a  atrikhuj  prooj  of  the  then  wide-spread  belief  in  the  miracles  of  Christ. 


412  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CUEIST.  [LECT.  VL 

its  entire  fulness  in  a  single  individual,  but  only  in  the  whole 
race.  Therefore  the  incarnalion  of  God  does  not  take  place 
in  a  single  individual  called  Christ,  but  universallij  and  con¬ 
tinuously  in  Humanity  as  a  whole.  In  a  treatise  with  which 
he  closed  his  former  Life  of  Christ,  Strauss  characteristically 
remarks,  “  As  the  subject  of  the  predicates  which  the  Church 
applies  to  Christ  we  must  posit  an  idea,  but  a  real  one,  viz. 
the  idea  of  the  human  race.”  This  shows  that  he  denies  the 
specific  divine  Sonsliip  of  Christ.  His  teaching  and  His  con¬ 
sciousness  were  but  natural  products  of  the  preceding  ages, 
the  Hellenic  and  Jewish  inheritance  of  which  concentrated 
themselves  in  Him.  The  latter  accounts  for  the  purely  spiritual 
and  moral  tendency  of  His  religious  views  ;  the  former,  for  His 
“  spirit  of  humane  love,” — the  “  cheerful,  unbroken  action  pro¬ 
ceeding  from  the  joyous  delight  of  a  beautiful  soul”  (p.  207 
ft.).  We  shall  see  in  Lect.  VIII.  that  these  factors  are  by  no 
means  sufficient  to  explain  the  whole  character  of  Christianity 
and  its  immense  effects.  But  they  are  not  even  correctly 
stated.  For  the  fundamental  feature  of  His  life  and  teaching 
is  not  the  mild  and  cheerful  Hellenic  view  of  the  world,  but 
rather  “  a  perfect  concentration  on  the  one  highest  aim,  and 
an  intense  conviction  that  He  w'as  called  to  be  a  revealer  of 
truth.”  ^  But  according  to  Strauss,  no  unique  position  can  be 
claimed  for  Christ.  As  a  member  in  the  development  of  the 
race.  He  only  marks  a  special  progress  in  the  knowledge  of 
the  ideal  man.  “  Every  great  moral  character,  every  great 
thinker,  has  helped  to  develope  the  idea  of  human  perfection.” 
Christ  stands  in  the  first  rank  of  those  who  have  so  done. 
“  He  introduced  features  into  the  ideal  of  humanity  whicii 
before  were  wanting,  or  at  least  had  remained  undeveloped, 
the  features  of  toleration,  of  charity,  and  of  love  to  man” 
(p.  625  et  ss.) ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  his  single  life,  his 
“  merely  passive  relation  to  the  state,”  his  “  visible  repug¬ 
nance  ”  to  all  trade,  his  entire  neglect  of  all  “  that  belongs  to 
art  and  the  refinements  of  life,”  were  “features  which  remained 
undeveloped  in  Christ,  and  leave  marked  deficiencies”  (p.  626).* 

1  Cf.  Weizsacker,  Untermclmngen  ilber  die  evangelische  GeschicJde  (p.  347). 

-  This  is  contradicted  on  p.  228,  where  Stranss  says  that  “Jesus  presented 
himself  as  the  friend  of  men,  wlio  thought  nothing  human  beneath  his  notice, 
nothing  human  foreign  to  him,  who  did  not  despise  liarniless  human  joys,”  eta. 


LECT.  vl]  steauss’ “  life  of  CIIPJST  ”  413 

Against  this  theory  of  a  universal  incarnation  of  God  instead 
of  the  individual  one,  Ullmanii  {uhi  sup.)  has  well  argued  that 
although  the  Eevelation  of  God  may  progress  through  all 
nations  and  all  ages,  yet  it  must  strive  towards  a  centre  and 
climax,  such  as  appeared  in  Christ ;  and  that  fhe  Church,  in 
order  to  be  an  organism,  must  have  a  living  Head.  Turther- 
more,  in  the  realm  of  art  great  geniuses  from  time  to  time 
appear,  in  whom  the  power  and  beauty  of  their  art  is  concen¬ 
trated,  such  as  Homer,  Kaphael,  Mozart.  In  them  the  fulness 
of  the  idea  is  to  a  great  extent  centred  in  one  person,  and  so 
it  must  be  still  more  entirely  with  the  Godhead  in  Christ. 
And  this  is  simply  a  necessity  ;  for  if  God  indeed  be  love,  then 
a  perfect  self-revelation  and  self-communication  on  His  part 
must  take  place  within  the  human  race  which  was  created  in 
His  own  image,  and  this  can  only  be  accomplished  through 
Him  who  is  at  once  the  image  and  Son  of  God,  the  Eedeemer, 
and  Head  of  manJcind.  Only  in  such  an  One  can  the  holy  love 
of  God  be  satisfied  ;  only  in  Him  can  mankind  have  been  the 
object  of  eternal  predestination  and  future  self-communication. 
“  The  idea  and  the  reality  of  the  Holy  Son  of  God  and  man 
thus  contains  the  exact  opposite  of  that  deprivation  for  the 
remainder  of  mankind,  which  Strauss  and  others  make  it  out 
to  be.  The  whole  fulness  of  God  is  imparted  to  others  only 
through  Him.”  ^ 

Here  we  see  the  fundamental  deficiency  in  Strauss’  view  of 
the  world  ;  it  ignores  the  importance  of  a  loersoncdity  in  the  life 
of  history.  In  Hegel’s  philosophy  all  personalities  are  merely 
points  at  which  the  “  ideas  ”  converge,  or  masks  through 
which  the  universal  spirit  looks.  And  so,  too,  in  Strauss’ 
view,  mankind  is  but  a  mass  of  powerless  atoms,  which 
together  make  up  a  divine-human  whole ;  but  not  a  living 
organism,  which,  as  such,  has  and  must  have  its  climax  and 
its  central  organ. 

Strauss  wishes  to  substitute  “the  idccd  Christ — i.e.  the  original 
type  of  man  as  he  should  be  contained  in  our  reason — for  the 
historical  ”  (p.  625)  ;  a  proof,  by  the  way,  how  little  he  cares 
for  historical  results  from  a  religious  point  of  view,  and  that 
his  so-called  historical  criticism  is  only  a  mepins  for  the  intro- 

'  Compare  the  article  on  “The  Siiilessness  of  Christ,”  in  Herzog’s  Beakncy- 
clopadie,  vol.  xxi,p.  210. 


414  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT.  VI. 

duction  of  his  pantheistic  principles.  This  is  the  way  with  all 
speculative  philosophy ;  it  invariably  treats  real  history  as  a 
secondary  matter.  So,  then,  our  “  saving  faith  is  to  be  trans¬ 
ferred  ”  from  a  palpable,  living  historical  Person,  to  an  intel¬ 
lectual  conception.  This  is  precisely  the  same  fundamental 
error  which  we  rejected  in  the  case  of  Pantheism,  as  if  an 
abstract  idea  which  is  not  typically  realized  in  some  personality 
could  of  itself  gain  a  hold  on  men’s  hearts ;  as  if  a  mere  prin¬ 
ciple,  or  even  a  moral  law,  could  make  itself  respected  and 
realize  itself,  unless  certain  persons  endowed  with  power  stood 
forth  as  its  exponents.  These  are  mere  dreams,  belied  by  the 
civil  and  religious  history  of  all,  and  especially  of  Christian 
nations.  The  moral  process  going  on  in  humanity  is  surely 
essentially  calculated  to  develope  personality,  and  is  therefoie 
also  essentially  dependent  on  the  influence  of  notable  moral 
personages.  If  the  indispensable  postulate,  that  moral  good¬ 
ness  should  be  realized  in  this  sinful  world,  is  not  to  be  given 
np,  this  realization  must  “  proceed  from  an  individual  in  whom 
goodness  itself  has  become  a  human  person.”  Our  divine 
sonsliip  can  only  proceed  from  the  divine  Son  Himself. 

As  for  what  Strauss  says  in  connection  with  this  about  a 
‘'development  of  Christ’s  religion  into  the  religion  of  humanity,” 
we  can  only  repeat  what  we  have  already  shown  to  be  the 
case,  that  Christ  and  His  gospel  alone  is  the  one  sure  and  firm 
exponent,  the  only  inexhaustible  souree  of  all  true  culture  and 
humanity  ;  this,  and  nothing  else,  not  even  Hellenicism.  We 
repeat,  that  to  go  beyond  Christ  in  the  perfection  of  religion  is 
an  utter  impossibility ;  and  that  to  tear  the  idea  of  humanity 
away  from  the  root  which  has  borne  it,  would  be — in  spite  of 
any  outward  varnish — not  progress,  but  the  surest  retrogres¬ 
sion  into  barbarism,  into  a  dotage  of  scepticism,  of  entire  sub¬ 
jectivity  and  selfishness.  Christ  is  not  one  amongst  others  of 
those  who  have  perfected  the  ideal  of  humanity ;  for  what  a 
spiritual  and  moral  gulf  is  there  between  Him  and  even  such 
men  as  Socrates  or  Moses  !  He  is  Himself  this  Ideal ;  for  why 
else  have  centuries  bowed  down  before  His  spiritual  and  moral 
dignity  and  stainless  beauty,  as  before  an  ever-flowing  spring 
of  truth  and  holiness  ?  That  man  only  can  cliscov’’er  “  essen¬ 
tial  deficiencies  in  this  portrait,”  who  has  from  the  beginning 
taken  Him  for  a  mere  man  instead  of  the  divine  Eedeemer, 


LECT.  VL]  STK.VUSS’  “LIFE  OF  CHRIST.”  415 

and  lias  thus  made  a  false  estimate  of  His  character,  His  life’s 
work,  and  His  whole  position  in  regard  to  human  affairs. 

Whereas  Scripture  subordinates  the  whole  of  humanity  to 
Christ,  Strauss  siihordinates  Christ  to  humanity  as  a  ivhole. 
According  to  Scripture,  all  humanity  is  gathered  together  under 
one  Head,  even  Christ  (Eph.  i.  10,  avaKecpaXaiwaaaOai  ra 
'irdvra  ev  Xpicnw ;  cf.  ver.  22  and  Col.  ii.  10) ;  according  to 
Strauss,  this  body  remains  ever  headless,  and  over  the  unhappy 
trunk  there  hovers  eternally  distant — an  ideal  I  I  shall  en¬ 
deavour  to  show  more  at  length  in  the  last  lecture,  how  all 
history  is  turned  upside  down  by  such  attempts  as  these  to 
derive  Christianity  from  natural  sources. 

This  entire  view,  then,  runs  counter  to  the  representations 
of  Scripture,  which  make  Christ,  not  the  almost  accidental 
point  of  union  for  the  previously  existing  germs  of  religious 
culture,  but  the  creative  centre  of  Christianity;  and  we  can¬ 
not  wonder  if  the  picture  of  Christ  drawn  by  its  author  is 
confused  and  insufficient.  Hence  the  peculiar  complaint  of 
Strauss :  “  About  few  great  men  have  we  such  insufficient 
information  as  about  Christ;  the  figure  of  Socrates,  though  400 
years  older,  is  incomparably  more  distinct”  (p.  621).  Indeed, 
this  were  passing  strange.  “  Ho  one  ever  made  so  great  an 
impression  upon  mankind  as  he  did ;  no  one  has  ever  left 
behind  him  such  traces  of  his  work  as  he ;  and  yet  of  no  man 
should  we  know  so  little  as  of  him,  though  he  belongs  not  to 
the  dark  days  of  hoary  antiquity,  but  to  the  clear  and  open 
age  of  history  !”  (Luthardt,  ttbi  suy)  To  Strauss,  only  that 
which  is  purely  human  and  imperfect  appears  clear,  because 
this  evidently  appears  in  the  case  of  Socrates,  therefore  his 
figure  is  clear ;  but  since  it  does  not  appear  thus  in  Christ, 
His  shape  is  indistinct. 

In  truth  it  cannot  but  become  so,  when  men  like  Strauss 
and  Schenkel  are  constantly  mahing  historical  difficulties,  and 
importing  them  into  the  narratives.  According  to  Strauss, 
Christ  performed  no  miracles.  But  in  this  case  how  could  the 
opinion  tahe  rise  that  He  ivas  the  Messiah  ?  We  are  told  that, 
as  being  a  prophet,  men  attributed  to  Him  miraculous  power, 
and  magnified  natural  cures  or  alleviations  into  miracles.  But 
can  this  liave  been  sufficient  to  produce  that  belief  ?  Men 
expected  the  Messiah  to  perform  the  most  extravagant  things. 


416  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [LECT.  YI. 

— works  at  least  as  great  as  those  of  Moses, — indeed,  special 
“  signs  from  heaven  why,  then,  did  they  not  rather  attribute 
to  Him  Messianic  signs  of  this  description  ?  •  And  how  is  it 
that  Jesus  invariably  refuses  to  show  signs  of  this  kind,  when 
demanded  from  Him,  in  proof  of  His  Messiahship  (Matt.  xvi. 
1  et  ss. ;  Mark  viii.  11  et  ss.  ;  Luke  xi.  16  ;  John  vi.  30  et  ss.), 
and  that  He  noiselessly  performs  signs  of  quite  a.  different 
sort,  and  miracles  of  far  more  modest  dimensions  ;  ^  and  yet 
this  belief  arises  ?  How  is  it  that  He  combats  the  carnal 
Messianic  expectations  of  His  disciples  and  hearers,  and  gives 
offence  to  them  by  declaring  “  the  kingdom  of  God  cometh  not 
with  outward  show — it  is  within  you;”  and  yet  this  opinion 
gains  ground  ? 

Furthermore,  according  to  Strauss,  certain  'prophetical 
designations  of  the  Messiah,  as  “  Son  of  David”  and  “  Son  of 
God,”  were  then  current.  The  first  of  these  designations, 
however,  Jesus  never  applied  to  Himself,  and  the  second  but 
seldom,  and  not  without  restriction  (p.  224  et  ss.)  ;  He  pre¬ 
ferred  to  call  Himself  by  the  humble  title,  “  Son  of  man.” 
Does  not  this  make  it  all  the  more  difficult  to  understand 
whence  the  belief  in  His  Messiahship  could  arise,  unless  those 
greater  miracles  (loaves  and  fishes,  raising  of  the  dead,  etc.) 
actually  took  place  ?  These,  we  are  told,  were  only  gradually 
invented  after  the  death  of  Christ,  and  it  was  not  till  then 
that  the  belief  in  His  Messiahship  began  to  spread  in  wider 
circles.  But  how  did  it  arise  in  the  disciples  ?  If  Jesus  did 
no  miracles,  and  yet  was  “  evidently  glad  ”  when  the  belief  in 
His  IMessiahship  sprang  up  in  the  minds  of  Peter  and  His 
most  intimate  disciples,  why  did  He  not  honestly  disabuse 
them  of  the  notion  that  the  Messiah  must  do  miracles  ?  Or 
if  He  did  so,  how  could  the  disciples  after  His  death  so  soon 
fall  back  into  their  old  miraculous  delusion  as  to  surround  His 
life  with  such  a  garland  of  myths,  and  that  in  contradiction  to 
their  real  experience  ?  Or  if  they  were  obliged  to  do  so  in 
order  to  obtain  a  hearing  from  the  people,  why  did  they  not 


*  According  to  the  most  recent  investigations,  the  purport  of  the  Messianic 
expectations  of  that  age  (which  Strauss  only  examines  superficially)  consisted  of 
miracles  such  as  those  of  Moses,  llow  lar  must  the  miracles  oi  Christ  have 
fallen  short  of  such  hopes  !  "Witness,  e.r/.,  the  disproportion  between  the  feeding 
of  the  five  thousand  and  the  manna  in  the  wilderness,  John  vi.  30  et  ss. 


LECT.  TL] 


417 


STEAUSS’  “  LIFE  OF  CUEIST.” 

ratlier  impute  to  their  Master  the  tremendous  miracles  ex¬ 
pected  by  the  excited  fancy  of  those  times,  and  thus  convince 
the  mass  of  the  unbelieving  Jewish  world  of  Ilis  Messiah- 
ship  ?  On  every  hand  this  mythical  hypothesis  entangles  ns 
in  enigmas. 

One  thing  is  perfectly  clear,  that  Christ  Himself  must  in 
some  way  or  other  have  given  an  impulse  to  the  fabrication  of 
myths.  How,  we  have  already  seen  how  much  is  left  of  the 
historical  Christ  after  all  the  myths  are  removed.  We  thus 
stand  before  the  question,  How  is  it  possible  that  the  mere  per¬ 
sonal  appearance  of  this  simple  Galilean  Rabbi  should  have  given 
so  great  an  impulse  ?  The  greatest  enigma  of  all  is,  that  this 
poor  slceleton  of  a  life  of  Christ  shoitld  ever  have  been  enveloped 
in  such  a  wealth  of  myths,  and  that  Christ,  in  contradiction  to 
the  universal  belief  in  a  miracle-working  Messiah,  should  ever 
have  been  able  to  attain  this  dignity  without  performing  a 
single  miracle} 

The  higher  view  of  Jesus  as  the  incarnate  Son  and  the 
eternal  Word  of  God,  is,  we  are  told,  the  “  last  layer  in  the 
process  of  the  deification  of  Christ,”  and  was  not  developed  till 
the  second  century.  But  in  the  Book  of  Eevelation,  which 
Strauss  acknowledges  to  have  been  written  by  St.  John,  we 
find  Jesus  already  designated  as  “  the  Word  of  God  ”  (xix.  13); 

as  “  the  Alpha  and  Omega . the  Lord  which  is,  and 

which  was,  and  which  is  to  come,  the  Almighty  ”  (i.  8).  Can 
we  conceive  of  a  higher  view  of  Christ’s  majesty  and  glory 
than  that  given  in  the  descriptions  of  the  Book  of  Eevelation 
from  beginning  to  end  ?  If  we  search  the  Epistles  of  St. 

^  Schelling  says:  “As  regards  the  hypothesis,  that  the  life  ot  Christ  was 
adorned  by  myths,  I  suppose  eveiy  one  will  admit  that  only  such  a  life  is  glorified 
by  myths  or  legends  as  has  been  already  in  some  manner  distinguished  and 
moved  into  a  liigher  region.  Now  the  question  is,  How  did  this  Jewish  country 
rabbi  Jesus  become  tlie  object  of  such  glorification  ?  Was  it  in  virtue  of  His 
teaching !  The  stones  which  they  took  up  show  how  the  Jews  received  this. 
What,  then,  is  the  presupposition  which  may  render  so  extraordinary  a  glorifica¬ 
tion  probable?  Only  if  we  yrant  that  Christ  passed  for  ivhat  we  have  recognised 
Him  to  he,  is  it  conceivable  that  in  consequence  oT  tiiis  opinion  certain  ‘niytlis’ 
may  iiave  arisen.  But  if  we  grant  this,  we  must  presuppose  the  entire  dignitj^ 
of  Christ,  quite  independently  ot  the  Gospels.  It  is  not  the  Gospels  wliich  are 
necessary  in  order  that  we  may  recognise  tlie  majest}’’  of  Christ,  but  it  is  the 
dignity  of  Christ  tchich  is  necessary  in  outer  that  we  may  he  able  to  comprehend 
these  Gospel  narratives."  (“  I’hilosophie  der  Oflcnbaiung,”  Siimmtliche  Werie, 
Fdst  II.  vol.  iv.  p.  233.) 


418  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHIHST.  [lECT.  VI, 

Paul,  which  Strauss  himself  accepts  as  genuine,  we  find  that 
Christ  is  “  the  Lord  of  glory  ”  (1  Cor.  ii.  8),  “  the  Lord  from 
heaven  ”  (1  Cor.  xv.  47),  “  by  whom  are  all  things  ”  (1  Cor. 
viii.  6),  “  the  image  of  God  ”  (2  Cor.  iv.  4),  who  existed  before 
His  incarnation  (1  Cor.  x.  4).  This  higher  view  of  Christ, 
then,  dates  from  the  first  centurjg  a,nd  from  the  apostolic 
circle.  How  did  the  apostles  arrive  at  this  view,  if  Christ  was 
a  mere  man  ? 

More  than  this.  That  hiiiher  view’  is  found  in  Christ's  testi- 
mony  respecting  His  own  Person.  Strauss  cannot  help  himself 
by  drawing  a  line  between  the  discourses  of  Christ  in  the 
fourth  Gospel  and  those  in  the  Synoptics.  However  much 
he  may  critically  reject  of  the  sayings  of  Christ,  there  wull 
always  be  enough  remaining  even  in  the  first  three  Gospels 
to  confute  his  view'.  There  will  be  passages  wdiere  Christ  calls 
God  His  Father  in  a  perfectly  unique  sense ;  where  He  pro¬ 
nounces  Himself  to  be  greater  than  the  temple,  greater  than 
Solomon,  the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  the  Lord  of  the  angels  ; 
where  He  makes  Himself  the  Mediator  and  Dispenser  of  the 
forgiveness  of  sins ;  wdiere  He  strictly  distinguishes  between 
His  own  undefiled  conscience  and  our  consciousness  of  sin ; 
wdiere  He  attaches  to  His  own  w’ork  and  Person  the  highest, 
eternally  valid  authority  in  all  matters  of  morals  and  religion  ; 
wdiere  He  attributes  to  Himself,  and  His  return  in  heavenly 
glory,  the  last  judgment  and  the  consummation  of  the  wmrld.^ 
Do  not  such  indubitable  signs  of  Christ  point  to  a  higher  view 
of  His  Person  contained  in  His  own  consciousness?  We  cannot 
evade  this  conclusion  by  general  phrases,  such  as  that  He 
called  Himself  Son  of  God  “  only  in  the  acceptation  of  a 
purified  Messianic  idea,”  etc.  No  ;  He  gave  Himself,  as  Keim 
says,  “  overwhelming  names  and  titles,  before  which  all  human 
categories  must  sink  into  silence.”  What  gave  Christ  the  right 
to  thinh  thus  oj  Himself  if  He  ivas  not  truly  the  Son  ’of  God  ? 
If  wm  accept  this  self-testimony  of  Christ,  then  His  Person 
stands  so  high  above  the  w'orld  and  the  remainder  of  humanity, 

'  Cf.  tliG  proofs  of  tliis,  pp.  245-249.  'VVitli  respect  to  Matt.  xi.  27,  “All 
tilings  are  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father,”  etc.,  Strauss  confesses  that  the  man 
who  so  speaks  must  place  himself  in  an  entirely  unique  relation  to  God,  and  that 
“  this  is  the  same  as  w'hen  the  Johannean  Christ  says  to  his  Father,  ‘  All  mine 
are  Thine,  and  Thine  are  mine  ’  (xvii.  10).” 


LECT.  VI.J  STEAUSS’  "  LIFE  OF  CIIIIIST.”  419 

that  neither  can  His  ivories  he  measured  according  to  mere  human 
and  creature  standards.  But  if  we  do  not  accept  this  testimony, 
we  must  necessarily  accuse  Christ  of  extravagance  and  undue 
self-exaltation;  and  then  the  crushing  task  remains,  to  reconcile 
these  glaring  defects  with  the  light  of  truth  and  moral  majesty, 
which  otherwise  shines  so  brightly  in  His  words  and  works, 
and  with  the  world-redeeming  and  regenerating  influences  that 
proceeded  from  Him. 

And,  in  fact,  Strauss  finds  himself  compelled  thus  to 
reproach  Christ.  Considering  Him  as  a  mere  man,  and  there¬ 
fore  imperfect,  he  does  and  must  undermine  His  sinlessncss. 
This  is  the  worst,  the  fatal  feature  in  his  theory.  “  The  notion 
that  Christ  was  sinless,  must  be  a  death-blow’  to  any  historical 
treatment  of  his  person  ”  {i.e.  any  which  denies  His  Godhead), 
“  for  even  the  best  of  men  has  constantly  to  accuse  himself  of 
some  faults  ”  (p.  195).  “  Humanity  alone  is  sinless,  inasmuch 

as  its  development  is  blameless,  and  impurity  cleaves  only  to 
the  individual  !”  Who  that  has  an  eye  for  the  fearful  corrup¬ 
tion  which  is  in  the  world  through  sin,  can  speak  of  a  ''  sinless 
humanity  ”  ?  Thus  it  is  that  the  pantheistic  creed  turns  every¬ 
thing  upside  down.  Hitherto  mankind  was  believed  to  be 
sinful  and  Christ  sinless ;  now  the  former  is  supposed  to  be 
sinless,  and  the  latter,  because  He  is  a  mere  individual,  to  be 
polluted,  or  at  least  imperfect.  Maiddnd,  however,  gains  little 
enough  by  the  exchange.  For  if  a  sinless  man  be  an  impos¬ 
sibility,  then  sinfulness,  moral  weakness,  and  imperfection  be¬ 
long  to  the  idea  of  man  as  an  individual.  Thus  the  idea  of 
man  is  degraded  by  one  wdio  claims  to  have  apprehended  it 
more  clearly.  We  see  that  to  deny  the  sinlessness  of  Christ 
is  to  degrade  the  human  race,  because  proceeding  from  too 
low  an  idea  of  man. 

True,  Strauss  cannot  conceal  from  himself  the  fact  that  the 
nature  of  Christ — “  unlike  those  of  a  Paul,  an  Augustine,  or 
a  Luther,  which  were  purified  by  means  of  a  struggle  and  a 
violent  rupture,  and  retained  tlie  scars  of  it  ever  after” — was 
uninterrupted  and  harmoniously  unfolded,  and  that  His  “  inner 
development  took  place  without  violent  crises”  (p.  208).  This 
is,  in  point  of  fact,  as  much  as  to  concede  His  sinlessness ;  for 
"  the  specific  purport  of  the  Old  Testament  is  the  recognition 
of  God’s  holiness  and  man’s  sin ;  and  on  this  soil  an  unbroken. 


420  MODEKN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHFJST.  [LECT.  VI. 

harmonious  nature  could  grow,  only  if  the  breach  of  God’s  wdll 
and  the  disharmony  of  sin  were  entirely  foreign  to  it.”  ^  But 
Strauss  contradicts  himself  by  demanding  that  this  unbroken 
development  of  Christ  should  be  understood  so  as  “  not  to 
exclude  isolated  fluctuations  and  faults  which  would  necessitate 
continuous  and  earnest  efforts  for  self-government  ”  (^iM  sup.). 

These  faults  are  supposed  actually  to  have  shelved  them¬ 
selves  towards  the  close  of  our  Lord’s  life.  At  this  period  we 
see  the  depths  of  His  divinity  manifested  more  clearly  than 
ever.  All  the  more  levers  must  be  applied  by  anti-miraculous 
critics  to  obscure  them ;  and  when  all  other  efforts  fail,  then 
they  cast  a  moral  slur  on  the  only  sinless  One.  Help  what 
may ;  only  His  divinity  must  not  be  conceded  !  We  will  leave 
Strauss’  frivolous  remarks  on  the  prayer  of  Christ  at  the  grave 
of  Lazarus  ^  out  of  the  question,  because  he  considers  the 
Christ  of  the  fourth  Gospel  to  be  a  fiction,  and  the  whole 
narrative  an  unhistorical  creature  of  the  primitive  Christian 
imaQ;ination.”  But  the  remarks  of  Strauss  on  Christ's  discourses 
respecting  His  second  coining  [e.g.  Matt.  xxv.  3 1  et  ss.)  leave  no 
room  for  doubt.  ‘‘  Here  we  stand  at  a  decisive  point.  For 
us,  Christ  exists  either  as  a  man  only,  or  not  at  all.  Such 
things  as  he  predicts  of  himself  here  cannot  be  said  of  any 
man.  If,  notwitlistanding,  he  did  predict  and  expect  these 
things,  wm  must  consider  him  a  visionary,  just  as,  had  he 
said  them  without  the  full  conviction  of  their  truth,  he  would 
have  been  a  bragging  deceiver.”  So  Strauss  decides  in  favour 
of  considering  Him  a  visionary.  “  What  offends  us  in  all 
these  discourses  is  only  the  one  point,  that  Christ  should  have 
attached  that  miraculous  change,  the  appearance  of  that  ideal 
day  of  retribution,  to  his  ovm  person,  and  that  he  should  have 
designated  himself  as  the  judge  who  would  come  in  the  clouds 
of  heaven,  accompanied  by  angels,  to  raise  the  dead  and  judge 
the  world.  The  man  who  expects  such  things  of  himself  is 
not  only  a  visionary,  he  is  guilty  of  undue  self-exaltation  in 
presuming  to  except  himself  from  all  others  so  far  as  to  place 
himself  above  them  as  their  future  judge.  In  so  doing,  Jesus 

^  Beysclilag,  uhi  siq^ra,  p.  47. 

®  P.  476:  “Tlie  Christ  of  this  Gospel,  thus  praying  out  of  accommodation 
(‘because  of  the  people’),  looks  like  an  actor,  and,  moreover,  a  clumsy  actor, 
when  he  confesses  that  his  prayer  is  a  mere  accommodation.” 


LECT.  VI.] 


STRAUSS’  “  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.” 


421 


seems  entirely  to  have  forgotten  how  once  he  refnsed  the  pre¬ 
dicate  '  good’  as  belonging  to  God  alone  ”  ^  (p.  242). 

In  such  sayings,  then,  we  have  extravagance  and  self- 
exaltation,  spiritual  and  moral  error.  13  ut  what  of  the 
“  beautiful  nature,”  with  the  joyous  Hellenic  clearness  of 
spirit,  of  which  Strauss  before  spoke  ?  He  breaks  off  here, 
as  though  conscious  that  this  is  the  most  self-evidently  ivcah 
foint  of  his  ivhole  historical  construction.  Christ  did  speak 
those  words.  Ho  criticism  can  remove  from  our  Gospels  the 
absolute  divine  consciousness  wliich  is  expressed  in  the  uni¬ 
versal  judicial  function  thus  claimed  by  Him,  Strauss  him¬ 
self  acknowledges  that  these  discourses  are  historical ;  and, 
indeed,  they  do  form  “  a  decisive  point.”  In  no  part  of  his 
Life  of  Christ  does  he  so  twist  and  turn  to  get  out  of  the 
difficulty,  and  in  no  part  can  he  so  ill  hide  the  embarrassment 
of  his  “  criticism.”  For  either  Christ  uttered  these  sentiments 
lorongly,  in  extravagance  and  self-exaltation, — and  then  let  any 
man  reconcile  them  with  His  otherwise  perfect  moral  majesty ; 
let  him  explain  how  from  this  haughty  enthusiast,  from  this 
religious  leader  who  himself  was  subject  to  sin  or  error,  there 
could  proceed  the  religion  of  humility  and  love,  and  the 
kingdom  of  truth  with  its  world-regeneruting  effects  ; — or,  on 
the  other  hand,  Christ  was  rigid  in  speaking  these  words,  and 
did  so  with  full  clearness  and  truth;  hut  then  Lie  teas  more 
than  a  mere  man.  From  this  we  see  that  though  all  the  works 
of  Christ  should  vanish  into  myths,  yet  His  words  remain  as  an 
irrefiddble  proof  of  His  Messiahship  and  Godhead  ;  and  so  does 
His  consciousness,  with  the  views  resulting  therefrom  of  His 
person  and  dignity,  as  something  incompatible  with  all  mere 
human  standards.  This  firm  rock  is  to  Strauss  a  stone  of 
stumhling  which  shatters  his  whole  theory  in  pieces.  He  is 
indignant  that  Jesus  Christ  should  dare  to  bind  the  whole 
eourse  of  the  \vorld  to  His  person,  and  should  call  all  men, 
even  Dr,  Strauss,  before  His  judgment  throne;^  and  rather 

^  Cf,  Beysclilag,  uhi  sup.  p.  54,  He  riglitly  remarks,  that  by  this  last  clause 
“Strauss  reprehends  his  own  abuse  of  the  passage  Mark  x.  8  (cf.  p.  376,  note), 
"Would  not  the  sini]ilest  rule  of  interpretation  have  bound  liiin  to  interpret  this 
isolated  passage  so  that  it  should  not  contradict  so  many  indubitable  sayings  of 
Christ  ?  ” 

*  To  show  that  we  are  not  saying  too  much,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  Bruno 
Bauer,  one  of  those  who  have  developed  the  mythical  hypothesis,  feels  himself 


422  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [LECT.  VI. 

would  he  grasp  after  the  crown  of  His  sinlessness  and  freedom 
from  error,  to  trample  it  in  the  dust,  than  how  down  before 
His  perfect  and  unique  grandeur,  and  acknowledge  before 
tliis  holy  mystery  what  poor  piecework  all  our  learning  and 
investigation  is.  It  is  the  old  objection  :  “  We  will  not  have 
this  man  to  reign  over  us”  (Luke  xix.  14;  Ps.  ii.  2  et  ss.). 
Thence  come  mistakes  which  cannot  he  corrected  by  the  best 
logic,  theories  whose  upholders  are  not  to  be*  confuted  by  the 
clearest  arguments. 

The  optical  illusion  of  mythicism  lies  in  the  train  of  argu¬ 
ment,  that  because  in  the  Church  herself  the  higher  knowledge 
of  Christ  was  gradually  attained,  therefore  this  higher  know¬ 
ledge  was  invented  from  the  imagination  of  these  primitive 
Christians,  though,  at  the  same  time,  we  cannot  understand 
how  this  idea  should  have  occurred  to  them.  From  the 
angels’  song  in  the  first  Christmas  night,  down  to  the  words, 
“  Simon,  son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  me  ?  ”  coming  from  the  lips 
of  the  risen  One,  the  '  gospel  history  contains  a  series  of 
pictures  so  beautiful  and  grand,  so  perfumed  with  heavenly 
grace,  that  innumerable  features  in  it  must  be  recognised  as 
'uninvcntcible.  Doubtless  there  is  a  ’poetry  in  them  ;  but  it  is 
not  that  of  arbitrary  fiction,  it  is  the  result  of  holy  and 
divinely  ordered  facts.  Why  should  legends  only  invent 
wdiat  is  beautiful  ?  Why  should  not  the  finger  of  God  in 
history  trace  out  an  objective  beauty  of  facts  which  exceeds 
all  that  human  fancy  can  invent  ?  Instead  of  saying  that  it 
is  too  beautiful  to  be  true,  each  man  who  believes  in  some¬ 
thing  more  tlian  our  common  everyday  life  should  say,  when 
looking  at  this  page  of  history,  “  It  is  too  Icautiful  to  he  mere 
fiction’’  so  beautiful  that  it  must  be  true.  There  is  an  ideal 
perfection  of  beauty  which  is  itself  the  highest  reality ;  or, 
to  use  the  "sverds  of  Gothe, 

“  The  unattainable  . 

Is  here  accomplished;” 

and  this  beauty  it  is  which  shines  in  the  Gospels,  above  all, 
in  the  delineation  which  they  give  us  of  Christ. 

Only  if  Christ  really  vjcis  vjhat  He  was  tahen  for,  can  ice 

“injured,  offended,  and  angered”  by  the  prominent  dignity  of  Christ  ;  “be- 
cause  o)ie  man  is  always  set  rrp  as  a  model  against  the  wickedness  and  stupidity 
of  all  the  others !  ”  (iu  his  KrUik  dcr  ciring.  Geschichte,  Preface.) 


LECT.  VI.]  STRAUSS’  “  LIFE  OF  CHRIST."  423 

solve  the  enigma  of  primitive  Christian  faith^  of  the  foundation, 
the  sp)rcad,  and  the  world-renewing  power  of  the  Christian  Church. 
Christ  could  only  live  as  the  God-man  in  the  hearts  of  His 
followers  if  He  really  ivas  so.  How  else  was  it  possible  that 
so  many  Jews  should  have  believed  in  One  who  was  shame¬ 
fully  crucified  (only  think  w'hat  a  stumbling-block  a  crucified 
"Messiah  must  have  been  to  them  !),  and  so  many  heatlien 
should  have  accepted  a  crucified  Jcio  as  the  Son  of  God  ? 
How  is  it  conceivable  that  on  this  sandy,  mythical  foundation 
a  Church  should  have  been  built  up  which  possessed  such 
vitality  and  power  of  groivth  1  Whence  did  the  Church, 
which  is  a  Christian  Church  solely  in  virtue  of  her  belief  in 
Jesus  as  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,— whence  did  the 
Church  take  her  rise,  if  she  'were  not  formed  by  Christ  in 
that  capacity  ?  A  myth  cannot  form,  cannot  produce  ;  it  is 
itself  only  a  product,  a  reflection  of  the  popular  mind,  and  that 
in  prehistoric  times :  it  cannot,  therefore,  have  begotten  the 
Christian  Church ;  nay,  it  cannot  even  have  helped  to  beget  it. 
The  establishment  of  the  Church,  this  immense  achievement, 
demands  a  personed  Will,  a  creative  power  of  the  greatest 
energy ;  it  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  the  empty  pictures  of 
imagination.  And  where  else  do  we  find  this  power,  what 
else  is  a  sufficient  explanation,  but  the  divine  power  of  the 
crucified  and  risen  One  ? 

We  look  at  the  enormous  revolution  in  the  ivorM  accom¬ 
plished  through  Christianity  ;  we  look  at  the  joyf  ul  heroism  of 
its  confessors,  braving  death  ;  and  at  the  purity  of  the  primitive 
Christian  Church,  which  is  born,  grows,  spreads,  and  finally 
conquers  the  world,  though  placed  between  a  thoroughly 
corrupted  Judaism  on  the  one  hand,  and  a  no  less  thoroughly 
vitiated  heathenism  on  the  other  ;  and  ■  having  done  so,  we 
consider  the  attempt  made  to  explain  all  this  from  the  fact 
that  a  certain  Jew  became  convinced  tlmt  he  was  the  Mcssicdi, 
whereupon  his  disciples  after  his  deedh  attributed  to  him  all 
sorts  of  miracles,  which  they  drew  from  their  imagination  ;  and 
our  final  conclusion  is,  that  this  explanation  involves  such  an 
idler  disproportion  between  cause  and  effect,  thed  it  is  in  itself 
the  most  inconceivable  miracle,  a  pure  historical  impossibility. 

Strauss  shares  the  fate  of  all  anti-miraculists.  Denying 
miracles,  they  are  forced  to  substitute  still  greater  enigmas 


424 


MODEIIN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CUEIST.  [lECT.  VL 


for  them,  and  yet  are  unable  to  explain  real  history.  There 
stands  Christ  in  the  unique  consciousness  of  His  Godhead, 
His  redeeming  vocation,  and  His  universal  Kingship.  There 
is  the  Cliurch,  there  is  Christianity  with  its  world-regenerat- 
in"  effects, — all  undeniable  facts.  All  these  Strauss  cannot 
explain  ^  by  referring  them  to  one  who  was  not  free  from  sin 
and  error,  or  to  the  inventive,  ay,  deceptive,  imagination  of 
his  followers.  Here  we  see  the  immense  residuum  which  even 
Strauss  cannot  get  rid  oj,  and  which  shows  his  whole  hypo¬ 
thesis  to  be  insufficient  and  wrong. 

His  hypothesis  does  not  suit  the  clearness  of  that  age, 
which  was  a  historiced  and  not  a  prehistoric  one  ;  it  does  not 
accord  with  the  truth-breathing  spirit  of  the  Gof^pcls,  nor  with 
their  simple,  clear,  and  temperate  style;  it  does  not  accord 
with  the  personal  greatness,  the  moral  perfection,  nor  the 
self-consciousness  and  the  self-testimony  of  Christ,  for  whom 
all  human  standards  are  insufficient ;  it  suits  neither  the 
spiritual,  -conscientious,  and  honourable  character  of  the 
primitive  Church,  nor  the  behaviour  of  its  opponents,  who  raise 
no  contradiction ;  it  does  not  accord  with  the  immense  and 
ever  beneficial  moral  cflcts  of  the  Gospel,  which  cannot  have 
proceeded  from  beautiful  though  unconscious  fancies,  nor  from 
intentional  deceptions  ;  and  finally,  we  boldly  say,  it  does  not 
accord  with  the  present  age,  in  which  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels 
is  still  approving  Himself  to  many  thousand  hearts  and  con¬ 
sciences  as  living  power  and  truth,  and  not  as  legend. 

It  all  comes  to  the  dilemma :  Did  Christ  create  the  Church, 
or  did  the  Church  invent  Christ?  The  former  of  these  pro¬ 
positions  is  supported  by  the  entire  analogy  of  history ;  the 
latter,  as  we  have  seen,  is  abnormal  and  inconceivable.  The 
Christ  of  Strauss  first  called  this  wonderful  Church  into 
existence  in  a  perfectly  natural  manner,  and  was  then  born 
again  as  a  creature  of  her  fiincy.  Is  not  this  the  old  trick 
which  Hegel  tried  to  play,  treating  the  world  as  posited  by 
the  “  absolute  Idea,”  whilst  this  “  absolute  Idea  ”  is  only 
realized  in  the  world  {vide  p.  167)  ?  Ho  wonder  that  Nemesis 
appeared  in  the  person  of  Bruno  Bauer  (not  to  be  confounded 

*  Cf.  Dorner,  History  of  Protestant  Theotoyy,  p.  838  (English  edit.,  vol.  ii. 
p.  372),  and  Schall,  Die  Person  Jesu  Christi  (Gotha,  1865),  p.  110  et  ss., 
English  edition  (Boston,  1865),  pp.  187  et  ss. 


LECT.  VI.] 


KENAN’s  “  VIE  DE  JESUS.” 


425 


with  Dr.  Ferdinand  Chri,stian  von  Banr),  who  carried  Strauss’ 
hypothesis  to  its  extreme,  and  said  in  effect :  You  derive 
everything  from  the  idea  of  the  Messiah  which  you  suppose 
to  have  been  already  in  existence  ;  but,  my  friend,  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  this  idea  itself  is  likewise  a  myth :  neither  Christ 
made  the  Church  nor  the  Church  Him,  the  Church  made 
itself!  !  I  will  spare  you  any  further  delineation  of  this 
utter  nonsense,  which  would  make  everything  exist  before  it 
exists,  and  would  engulf  all  historical  development  in  an 
eternal  progress  from  nothing  to  nothing. 

“  Simplex  veri  sigillum” — Simplicity  is  the  seal  of  the  truth. 
This  wise  motto  of  a  great  physician  is  applicable  in  all 
matters  of  history  and  of  faith.  Compare,  my  honoured 
hearers,  this  artificially  invented,  this  laboriously  and  violently 
applied  mythical  hypothesis  as  to  the  life  of  Christ,  with  the 
simple  and  artless  statements  of  the  Gospels.  Can  you  any 
longer  doubt  which  bears  the  impress  of  truth  ? 


IV, - EENAN’s  “  VIE  DE  JESUS.” 

After  having  thus  fully  discussed  the  mythical  theoiy,  it 
will  suffice  to  give  the  French  Strauss  a  shorter  consideration 
than  his  German  colleague.  The  standpoint  of  Ernest.  Eenan 
in  his  Vie  cle  Jesus^  is  essentially  the  same  as  that  of  Strauss, 
and  is  shattered  to  pieces  on  the  same  rock. 

Goethe  says  somewhere:  “A  book  which  should  explain  to 
us  Christ  as  a  man  glorified  by  the  pure  divine  charm  which 
surrounded  him,  would  exercise  an  immense  influence  on 
Christianity.”  If  the  success  of  a  book  were  any  criterion  of 
its  intrinsic  value,  we  might  imagine  that  Eenan  had  suc¬ 
ceeded  in  solving  this  problem,  and  that  Goethe’s  prophecy 
was  fulfilled  in  him ;  although,  to  be  sure,  there  is  not  much 
of  the  “  pure  divine  charm  ”  left  us  in  his  portrait  of  Christ. 
But  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  unparalleled 
success  of  this  book,  which  has  been  circulated  by  hundreds  of 
thousands,  especially  in  the  Btoman  Catholic  world  (France 
and  Italy),  is  primarily  due  to  its  graceful /orui. 

^  We  quote  trom  the  edition  of  1863. 


426 


MOLEUN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [LECT.  VI. 


Eenan’s  work  is  an  embodiment  of  the  spirit  of  modern 
French  infidelity.  We  see  it  here  gracefully  floating  along  in 
all  its  seductive  elegance,  labouring  hard  to  compress  much  into 
brilliant  and  short  sentences,  yet  withal  pleasantly  entertaining, 
and  using  all  those  arts  which  for  centuries  have  made  it  such 
a  favourite  in  the  polite  society  of  Europe.  But,  at  the  same 
time,  we  mark  its  boundless,  well-nigh  incomprehensible  capri¬ 
ciousness,  its  sujrerficial  frivolity,  which  only  calculates  on 
sensations  suited  to  the  tiine.s,  and  gracefully  waives  the  most 
difficult  problems ;  we  mark  its  entire  want  of  earnest  moral 
consciousness,  of  real  scientific  perception,  of  thorough  and 
conscientious  historical  investigation,  and,  worse  than  all,  the 
piquant  flippancy  (pleasing,  alas  !  to  too  many)  which  does 
not  hesitate  to  clothe  the  most  holy  Figure  in  history  in  the 
garb  of  a  social  democrat  of  modern  France,  nor  to  change  the 
most  sacred  life  into — a  novel. 

This  book  is  the  first  part  of  a  larger  work  ;  ^  it  was  written 
on  the  occasion  of  a  journey  to  Phoenicia  and  the  Holy  Land. 

I  wrote  down  a  sketch  of  it  hurriedly  enough  in  a  IMaronite 
liut,  with  five  or  six  books  around  me.  .  .  .  The  striking 
agreement  between  the  descriptions  of  the  Kew  Testament 
and  the  places  which  lay  around  me ;  the  wonderful  harmony 
between  the  ideal  portrait  of  the  Gospels  and  the  landscape 
which  served  as  its  frame — all  these  things  were  a  kind  of 
revelation  to  me.  I  seemed  to  have  a  fifth  gospel  before  me, 
mutilated  and  torn,  but  still  legible  ;  and  from  that  hour, 
under  the  guidance  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  I  saw,  instead  of 
that  abstract  being  whose  existence  one  can  scarce  help 
questioning,  a  genuine  but  wondrously  beautiful  human 
figure  full  of  life  and  motion.  ...  I  fixed  this  picture,  which 
appeared  to  my  spirit,  with  a  few  hasty  strokes,  and  what 
grew  from  it  is  this  sto-ry  ”  {vide  Introduction). 

This  explains  to  us  the  whole  character  of  the  book.  On  a 
well-drawn  background  of  Syrian  landscapes,  Penan  sketches 
the  picture  of  Christ,  not  in  philosophical  abstractions,  but 
with  the  fresh  colours  of  life ;  not  floating  in  mythical  mists, 
but  with  sharply  defined  features.  Unlike  the  figure  drawn 
by  Strauss,  which  is  constantly  shrinking  up  under  the  mono- 

*  “Ilistoire  cles  origines  du  Christianisme.  ”  Since  then  there  have  appeared 
the  second  part,  “Les  ApOtres,”  and  tlie  tliird,  “  St.  PauL”  i 


LECT.  VL]  EEXAN’S  “  vie  DE  JESUS.”  427. 

tonous  action  of  the  critical  dissecting  knife,  till  at  last  the 
operator  complains  that  of  few  great  men  do  we  know  so  little 
as  of  Christ ; — unlike  this,  here  we  see  flesh  and  blood,  life  and 
development.  Indeed,  there  is  a  certain  warmth  of  feeling 
for  the  beauties  of  the  King  whom  yet  he  seeks  to  dethrone. 
Nowhere  do  we  breathe  the  close  air  of  the  study,  but  always 
the  fresh  breezes  of  an  inspiriting  journey.  But  then  tliis 
vivid  freshness  is  so  dearly  bought,  that  we  could  wish  the 
lamp  of  study  had  not  been  wanting  in  that  hlaronite  hut 
(and  afterwards  too  !),  and  that  the  clever  Frenchman  had  not 
so  often  tried  to  cover  his  want  of  thorough  investigation  by 
fanciful  ideas  and  brilliant  superficiality.  For  the  “fifth 
gospel  ”  from  which  he  borrows  is  (as  we  shall  soon  see)  not 
only  the  ocular  instruction  obtained  on  the  scene  of  the 
occurrences,  but  to  a  considerably  greater  extent  his  imagina¬ 
tion,  which  appears  to  have  blossomed  so  luxuriantly  under 
the  rays  of  the  Eastern  sun,  that  it  plays  its  possessor  one 
trick  after  another,  and  finally  changes  him  from  a  historian 
into  a  novelist. 

lienan,  too,  sees  in  Jesus  nothing  more  than  a  man.  Fie 
intends  to  draw  a  “wondrously  beautiful,”  yet  “genuinely 
human,”  portrait,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  supernatural  factors. 
We  shall  see  whether  he  succeeds  in  both  these  respects,  or 
wdiether  the  all  too  great  humanity  does  not  spoil  the  wondrous 
beauty,  and  make  ugly  stains  in  it.  As  Strauss  makes  use  of 
the  myth  to  get  rid  of  the  supernatural,  so  Eenan  uses  the 
cognate  conception  of  the  legend.  His  views  are  expressed  in 
the  sentence,  that  “  the  life  of  Christ,  as  the  evangelists  relate 
it,  is  essentially  historical,  but  in  no  ivay  sngicvnatural.”  The 
Gospels  are  “  essentially  ”  genuine  writings,  composed  by 
apostles  or  their  disciples  in  the  course  of  the  first  century. 
Even  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  Eenan  supposes  probably  to  have 
been  written  by  an  intimate  disciple  of  his,  and  quite  in  his 
spirit.  But  for  all  that,  in  them  the  real  history  of  Christ  is 
throughout  distorted  hy  Uqcnds,  and  adorned  by  the  traditions 
of  the  wonder-loving  disciples.  Moreover,  these  four  “legendary 
biographers  flagrantly  contradict  each  other”  (Introduction,  p. 
xliv) ;  “they  are  full  of  errors  and  of  nonsense”  (p.  450). 
The  questions  which  we  asked  above, — wdiether  the  fabrica¬ 
tion  of  such  legends  is  in  accordance  with  the  otherwise 


428  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OE  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [LECT.  VI. 

conscientious  and  sober  character  of  the  disciples,  and  with 
the  behaviour  of  their  opponents  who  do  not  dispute  the 
miracles, — none  of  them  trouble  Eenan ;  his  historical  con¬ 
science  is  far  above  such  scruples.  We  are  merely  told  that 
tradition  at  that  time  was  utterly  unconcerned  as  to  an  exact 
record  of  what  had  happened  ;  since  “  the  spirit  was  every¬ 
thing,  the  letter  nothing  ”  to  these  primitive  historians,— just 
as  though  no  one  could  have  had  any  interest  in  obtaining 
certain  and  exact  information  about  the  words  and  works  of 
Christ  (cf.  Luke  i.  4). 

Eut  from  this  mass  of  legends  and  apocryphal  miracles  the 
real  history  of  Christ  may  still  be  extracted  by  means  of  a 
bold  historical  criticism.  How,  then,  does  it  now  appear  ? 

Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  was  born  in  Hazareth, 
not  in  Bethlehem,  nor  of  the  lineage  of  David.  He  grew  up 
in  poor  circumstances,  and  notwithstanding  his  unusually  rich 
gifts,  he  remained  under  the  influence  of  the  narrow  views 
common  to  his  people.  Thus  he  believed  in  Satan,  in 
demons,  in  miracles,  and  had  no  knowledge  whatever  of  the 
“  inflexibility  of  all  nature’s  laws  ”  {vide  Introduction).  In 
his  youth  he  even  showed  some  inclination  to  the  uncouth 
and  narrow-minded  fanaticism  of  the  Pharisees.  “  Probably,” 
however,  he  learned  from  tlie  mild  Pabbi  Hillel  (who  lived 
from  110  B.C.  to  1 0  a.u.).  In  addition  to  the  Old  Testament, 
he  “  probably  ”  read  many  of  the  apocryphal  writings ;  and 
the  visions  of  Daniel  especially  fixed  themselves  in  his  mind. 
This  constant  “probability”  at  the  very  outset  shows  that 
Penan  is  writing  history  only  in  hypotheses. 

Penan  divides  the  public  life  of  Christ  into  three  periods.* 
The  first  and  most  beautiful  was  “  the  period  of  pure  moral 
tcaeliing”  of  the  tranquil  Galilean  life.  There,  from  the 
blue  skies  of  Galilee,  from  the  beauties  of  nature,  and  from 
his  own  heart,  Jesus  extracts  a  consciousness  of  God  such  as 
no  one  before  or  after  him  has  ever  had,  and  he  beeius  to 
preach  about  the  heavenly  Father  whom  he  has  found.  “  God 
is  our  Father,  and  all  men  are  brethren.”  This  was  at  that 
time  the  purport  of  his  preaching.  He  announced  a  kingdom 
of  God  “  which  we  must  create  in  ourselves  through  upright¬ 
ness  of  the  will  and  poetry  of  the  heart.”  In  the  Sermon  on 
^  Cf.  Luthardt,  uVi  sup.  p.  25  et  ss. ;  Ulilliorn,  uhi  sup.  p.  15  et  ss. 


LECT.  VI.] 


IIEXAE’s  “  VIE  DE  JESUS.” 


429 


tlie  Mount,  “  that  most  beautiful  code  of  a  perfect  life  which 
ever  moralist  drew  up,”  we  may  recognise  the  main  features 
of  this  divine  kingdom :  a  worship  built  upon  purity  of  heart 
and  brotherly  love  to  men ;  a  religion  without  priests  and 
outward  ceremonies,  entirely  depending  on  the  imitation  of 
God  and  the  immediate  communion  of  conscience  with  the 
heavenly  Father.  The  laffir  realistic  conception  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  is  an  obscuration  of  this  then  pure  idea.  At  that 
time,  too,  J esus  did  not  as  yet  perform  any  miracles.  Had  he 
died  during  this  period,  his  idea  would  have  remained  purer. 
But  it  is  one  thing  to  conceive  a  great  idea,  and  another  to 
give  it  practical  effect.  In  order  to  attain  success,  every  idea 
must  sacrifice  something,  for  none  ever  yet  went  forth  un¬ 
stained  from  the  great  struggle  of  life.  “In  order  to  oiaJce 
that  vjhicli  is  good  succcssfid  among  men,  less  ijure  ways  are 
necessary.”  ^  Without  miracles  the  gospel  could  not  have  con¬ 
quered  the  world.  Here  we  see  the  fundamental  desideratum 
of  Benan’s  historical  theory  ;  it  leaves  no  room  for  the  moral 
consciousness.  A  little  fraud  is  absolutely  necessary  in  order 
to  succeed.  And  so  Christ  was  obliged  to  come  down  more 
and  more  from  his  ideal  heights,  till  at  length  he  fell  into  the 
slough  of  deception  as  soon  as  he  endeavoured  to  realize  his 
ideal. 

With  this  we  enter  on  the  second  veriocl  of  his  vv'ork,  that 
of  intoxicated  Gcdilean  enthusiasm,  brought  in  by  the  unfavour¬ 
able  influence  of  John  the  Baptist’s  austere  spirit  on  the 
milder  soul  of  Jesus.  He  now  adepts  the  Messianic  belief 
of  his  nation,  and  begins  to  think  more  highly  of  liis  own 
person.  In  the  energetic  flight  of  his  will  he  believes  himself 
to  be  almighty,  the  reformer  of  the  universe.  He  now  preaches 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  which  he  himself  brings ;  his  funda¬ 
mental  idea  chano-es  to  that  of  an  entire  overthrow’  of  the 

o  « 

existing  order  of  things,  a  moral  revolution  by  which  even 
sickness  and  death  should  be  banished,  but  not  through 
sanguinary  political  means.  The  kingdom  of  God  was  to  be 
realized  in  a  peaceable  manner  by  men  amongst  men.  He 

^  “  Pour  faire  reussir  le  bien  parmi  les  liommes,  des  voies  moins  purea  sont 
liecessaires. ”  See,  too,  how  Eenan  in  his  “St.  Paul”  (1869)  makes  tlie  apostle 
on  several  occasions  take  his  refuge  in  jugglery,  because  “the  contact  with 
reality  always  detiles.” 


430  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT.  YL 

gathers  around  his  person  a  circle  of  “  childlike  ”  disciples,  of 
publicans,  and  especially  of  women  and  Magdalens,  “  who  in 
his  society  discovered  an  easy  means  of  becoming  honest 
again.”  Thus  he  passes  through  the  country  riding  on  a 
gentle  mule  along  the  lovely  shores  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee, 
surrounded  by  applauding  multitudes,  with  young  fishermen 
as  his  enthusiastic  friends,  women  and  children  in  his  train. 
It  is  "  a  constant  festival,”  an  uninterrupted  intoxication,  a 
heavenly  rural  wedding  feast.  “  The  new  religion  is  in  many 
respects  a  movement  amongst  women  and  children.” 

This  lovely  but  visionary  idyll  is  followed  by  the  fatal 
third  inriod,  that  of  the  dark  fanatical  conjlict  with  the 
Pharisees  and  ecclesiastical  rulers.  In  order  to  attack  the 
citadel  of  Judaism,  Jesus  changes  his  place  of  action  from 
Galilee  to  Judea  and  Jeruscdem.  In  view  of  the  temple  with 
its  priests  and  slaughterings,  he  seizes  the  cleansing  scourge. 
This  act  loosened  the  last  bond  which  bound  him  to  the 
Jewish  faith,  and  tightened  the  knot  of  enmity  between  him 
and  the  rulers.  He  and  his  provincials  had  made  but  small 
impression  on  the  smooth  and  polished  floor  of  the  capital. 
All  the  more  does  this  want  of  success  inflame  his  zeal.  The 
preacher  of  morals  turns  into  a  violent  revolutionary,  and 
apocalyptic  enthusiast.  ISTow  he  is  the  klessiah  appeared  in 
person,  who  will  abolish  the  law  and  found  his  kingdom  on 
the  ruins  of  the  present  age.  He  speaks  of  his  second  coming 
in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  makes  the  angels  of  God  his  ser¬ 
vants  to  execute  judgment  on  the  world,  and  pronounces  the 
belief  in  his  person  as  Son  of  God  in  a  superhuman  sense  the 
fundamental  law  of  his  kingdom.  His  natural  meekness 
changes  into  a  sharp  and  dictatorial  manner  which  can  bear 
no  contradiction.  Indeed,  at  times  his  ill-temper  towards  all 
resistance  betrays  him  into  inexplicable  and  seemingly  absurd 
actions,  as,  e.g.,  his  curse  against  the  fig-tree. 

At  that  time  the  first  legendary  germs  began  to  collect  ^even 
around  the  living  person  of  Christ.  Because  the  Messiah  was 
generally  supposed  to  be  the  Son  of  David,  Christ  let  himself 
be  called  so ;  at  first  unwillingly,  because  he  well  knew  that 
he  was  not  descended  from  him,  but  afterwards  he  found 
pleasure  in  the  title.  Thence  proceed  the  legends  of  his 
lineage  and  his  birth  in  Bethlehem.  But  above  all,  he  now 


LECT.  VL]  EEXAN’S  "  vie  DE  JESUS.”  431 

puts  on  the  appearance  of  miraculous  power,  and  in  general 
becomes  less  particular  in  the  choice  of  v'ays  and  means. 
True,  even  earlier  than  this  he  may  have  given  an  impulse 
to  the  formation  of  miraculous  legends ;  for  one  of  his  most 
constant  and  deep-seated  convictions  was,  that  through  faith 
and  prayer  a  man  could  obtain  full  power  over  nature,  Eest- 
ing  upon  this  conviction,  he  obtained  that  extraordinary  power 
over  men’s  minds  which  soon  led  them  to  attribute  to  his 
miraculous  power  every  remarkable  case  of  recovery  from 
sickness,  or  awakening  from  apparent  death,  that  happened  in 
his  neighbourhood.  Fame  multiplied  the  number  of  these 
occurrences  immensely.  For,  on  the  whole,  there  are  but  few 
different  kinds  of  miracles  related  in  the  Gospels ;  they  are 
merely  repetitions  of  one  and  the  same  pattern.  Jesus,  how¬ 
ever,  in  all  probability  never  performed  real  miracles ;  for  in 
all  cases  (though  Eenan  himself  can  only  cite  tivo  !)  in  which 
scientific  researches  have  been  made  as  to  ostensible  miracle.s, 
they  have  been  found  to  be  baseless.  Eenan  expresses  liim- 
self  more  cautiously  than  Strauss  :  “  We  d-o  not  say  that  a 
miracle  is  impossible,  but  only  that  as  yet  none  has  ever  been 
confirmed ;  ”  but  in  reality  he  means  the  same.  But  many 
circumstances  seem  to  indicate  that  it  was  not  till  a  later, 
period,  and  against  his  will,  that  Jesus  became  a  miracle- 
worker  (pp.  265,  270).  He  had  no  choice.  Miracles  were 
universally  considered  an  indispensable  proof  of  a  divine  mis¬ 
sion.  He  allowed  himself,  compelled  by  this  unconquerable 
prejudice  of  the  multitude,  to  assume  the  appearance  of 
miraculous  power,  and  in  some  cases  really  did  succeed  in 
producing  improvement  in  the  condition  of  j)hysical  or  mental 
sufferers  by  means  ot  his  moral  influence,  and  at  other  times 
cured  those  who  fancied  themselves  possessed,  by  falling  in 
with  their  monomania.  In  other  cases,  however,  miracles 
were  simply  fathered  upon  him  by  the  superstition  of  his  con¬ 
temporaries  or  the  enthusiastic  fancy  of  his  followers.  At 
length  his  miracles  became  intentional  frauds.  This  was 
especially  the  case  with  the  illusion  practised  at  the  raising 
of  Lazarus,  who  was  laid  in  the  grave  alive,  in  order  that  he 
might  issue  forth  at  the  call  of  Jesus.  “  Tired  of  the  cold 
reception  with  which  the  kingdom  of  God  had  met  in  the 
capital,  tlie  friends  of  Christ  were  desirous  of  a  great  miracle. 


432 


MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT.  VI, 


in  order  that  they  might  strike  a  heavy  blow  at  the  unbelief 
of  Jerusalem.  Lazarus  and  his  two  sisters  undertook  the 
chief  part  in  this  fraud.”  And  Christ,  who  knew  of  it,  joined 
in  the  comedy !  “We  must  keep  in  mind  that  in  this  impure 
town,  with  its  dull,  oppressive  atmosphere,  Jesus  was  no 
longer  the  same.  His  conscience  had,  through  the  fault  of 
men,  not  his  own,  lost  something  of  its  origincd  'purityd  The 
town  had  exercised  a  dcmorcdizing  influence  upon  liim  !  Well 
it  was  that  death  soon  plucked  him  out  of  the  fatal  meshes 
of  a  role  which  was  no  longer  practicable. 

But  this  death  of  his  atoned  for  his  momentary  aberra¬ 
tions.  Eenan  closes  the  life  of  Christ  with  the  last  sigh  on 
the  cross.  The  resurrection  is  unhistorical.  The  empty  grave 
and  the  imaginary  vision  which  appeared  to  the  excited  Mary 
IMagdalene  gave  tlie  impetus  to  this  legend.  Only  the  enthu¬ 
siasm  of  love  raised  Jesus  to  the  elevation  of  the  Godhead. 
“  Divine  power  of  love  ” — thus  Eenan  concludes  with  solemn, 
piously  sounding  pathos — “  sacred  moments,  in  which  the 
passion  of  a  hallucinated  woman  gave  the  world  a  risen 
God  !”' 

This  is  the  sad  and  downward  path  of  the  life  of  Christ 
according  to  Eenan.  What  is  particidarly  repulsive  in  his 
description  is  the  constant  rnixture  of  admiration  and  blas¬ 
phemy,  of  approbation  and  detraction.  But  though  this 
defilement  of  our  Lord’s  life  may  raise  our  indignation,  we 
are  utterly  disgusted  when  we  look  at  the  important  and 
ambiguous  part  in  it  which  Eenan  assigns  to  the  icomen. 
Here  we  see  only  too  distinctly  that  the  writer  borrows  his 
colours  from  the  society  amongst  which  he  moves,  and  for 
whom  his  novel  is  calculated.  The  young  Galilean,  “  of 
ravishing  beauty  ”  and  amiableness,  captivated  women’s  hearts. 
His  words  and  looks  penetrated  their  inmost  soul.  Women  of 
dubious  morality  are  not  wanting.  These  “  fair  creatures  ” 
(belles  creatures)  having  received  a  strong .  impression  from 
him,  now  emulate  each  other  in  proofs  of  grateful  love.  True, 
Eenan  does  not  tliink  of  accusing  Clirist  Lfimself  of  anything 
wrong.  But  still  he  tliinks  it  possible  that  “  in  that  dark 
liour  in  Gethsemane,  Jesus  thought  not  only  of  the  clear 

'  “Jloments  sacres,  ou  la  passion  d’une  linllucinee  donue  au  inonde  un  Dieii 
re.suscite  !  ”  (cf.  Lect.  VII.) 


LECT.  VI.] 


EENAN’s  “  VIE  DE  JESU3.” 


I  O  O 

too 


brooks  in  bis  native  land,  but  also  of  tlie  Galilean  girls, 
whose  love  he  renounced,  in  order  to  live  only  for  his 
vocation  ! !  ” 

AVe  turn  away  in  disgust.  Even  a  rationalist  like  A. 
Coquerel  wrote  to  Eenan  :  “  I  beg  you  to  expunge  from  your 
book  an  intolerably  odious  phrase — that  about  the  ‘  fair 
creatures.’  ...  In  the  name  of  good  taste,  and  of  the  highest 
and  most  delicate  rules  of  decency,  do  speak  of  them  with 
more  dignified  gravity  !  ”  ^  Before  this  we  liave  had  occasion 
to  complain  of  arbitrary  treatment  of  history  by  the  anti- 
miraculous  critics  of  the  life  of  Christ ;  but  here  we  have 
worse  than  that — the  morbid  abortions  of  an  imagination  cor- 
rupted  by  the  air  of  Paris. 

Ne-vertheless  we  will  give  a  quiet  investigation  to  these 
statements  of  Eenan.  In  these  three  periods  of  the  life  of 
Christ  we  really  have  a  genuine  human — one  might  even  say 
Erencli — development,  but  only  at  the  cost  of  openly  giving 
up)  His  sinlessness.  According  to  the  Gospels  (cf.  Luke  ii.  49 
with  John  xvii.),  Jesus  rises  from  step  to  step  in  the  develop¬ 
ment  ot  His  divine  consciousness  and  the  proof  of  His  obedi¬ 
ence  even  to  death  ;  according  to  Eenan,  He  constantly  sinlcs 
lower  both  in  spiritual  knowledge  and  in  moral  purpose  and 
practice.  In  the  Clirist  of  the  Gospels  we  are  astonished  at 
the  constancy  of  His  character,  and  the  uniformity  of'  His 
moral  dignity.  Eenan  goes  so  far  in  “  developing  ”  his  Christ, 
that  he  at  last  is  “  no  longer  himself  !  ”  The  sublime  moral 
teacher,  with  his  pure  ideas,  becomes  an  amiable  but  unprac¬ 
tical  enthusiast,  who  as  yet  knows  little  of  the  world  ;  the 
innocent  enthusiast  changes  into  a  fanatic  revolutionist,  a  dark 
prophet  who  only  hears  in  his  dreams  the  trumpet  of  judg¬ 
ment  ;  and  he  at  last  turns  into  a  deceiver,  at  first  against  his 
will,  making  one  dishonest  concession  after  another  to  the 
spirit  of  the  age  ;  then  into  a  Jesuit,  who  thinks  that  the  end 
sanctifies  any  means,  and  who  is  not  even  ashamed  of  a 
comedian’s  tricks ! 

^  In  the  people’s  edition  several  offensive  things  were  really  eliminated.  But 
in  Eenan’s  “St.  Paul”  (1869)  he  again  assigns  an  important  part  to  the  Greek 
women,  and  makes  the  apostle  entertain  the  warmest  feelings  towards  his  beau¬ 
tiful  and  faithful  devotees,  “  amongst  whom  he  appears  even  to  have  formed  a 
more  intimate  connection  with  Lydia,  though  he  may  not  have  taken  her  with 
him  on  his  travels  ! !  ” 


434  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [LECT,  VL 

Moral  teacher,  enthusiast,  fanatic  and  deceiver,  of  what  do 
these  three  statres  of  life  remind  ns  ?  Doubtless  the  Koran 

o 

at  once  occurs  to  all  of  us.  And  verily  Henan  is  naive 
enough  openly  to  confess  that  “  the  life  of  Mohammed  supplied 
him  with  the  idea  of  these  periods  ”  (cf.  the  Introd.).  He  has 
merely  made  the  little  mistake  of  confounding  the  true  Proghet 
luith  the  false  one  !  !  Who  can  wonder,  after  this,  that  Eenan 
should  have  drawn  a  distorted  caricature  instead  of  a  true 
historical  picture  ? 

Here,  as  in  the  case  of  Strauss  and  Schenkel,  we  see  a  just 
retribution.  In  the  character  of  Christ,  deity  and  humanity 
form  an  inseparable  personal  unity,  and  whoever,  in  depicting 
Him,  excludes  the  divine  factor,  cannot  justly  treat  the  human 
nature  of  Christ,  for  he  cannot  depict  it  without  bringing  in 
'  shadows  wHich  would  make  Him  quite  incompetent  to  be 
the  Eedeemer  of  the  world.  Eenan  promises  to  show  us  a 
“  wondrously  beautiful  ”  human  character.  But  wEen  we 
think  of  his  Christ  at  the  grave  of  Lazarus,  how  much  of  this 
beauty  remains  ?  Eenan’s  account  gives  us  the  impression 
that  he  is  umvilling  to  include  these  moral  stains  in  the 
picture  of  Christ.  He  would  willingly  represent  Him  as  more 
pure,  if  this  were  possible.  But  through  his  acknowledgment 
that  our  Gospels  are  essentially  genuine  apostolic  writings,  he 
is  compelled  to  take  for  genuine  historical  tradition  much  that 
Strauss  simply  throws  overboard  as  mythical.  What  other 
choice  has  Eenan,  since  he  denies  the  Godhead  of  Christ  and 
the  existence  of  the  miraculous,  than  to  ascribe  these  elements 
in  the  Gospels  to  visionary  enthusiasm,  or,  if  that  will  not 
suffice,  to  deceit  P  It  is  of  no  use  to  try,  as  Eenan  does,  to 
excuse  these  impure  means  which  he  supposes  Jesus  to  employ 
by  saying  that  this  was  the  only  way  for  Him  to  attain  His 
object,  that  in  this  world  “  nothing  great  was  ever  accom¬ 
plished  without  resting  on  a  legend  ;  ”  it  is  of  no  use  to 
transfer  the  guEt  from  Jesus  to  “men  who  want  to  be  de- 

*  “  The  case  of  Renan  is  highly  instructive,  as  shov-ing  what  a  man  must  come 
to  who  concedes  the  historical  character  of  the  Gospels  even  merely  in  their 
fundamental  features  (and  this  every  one  must  do,  or  else  give  himself  up  to  an 
arbitrary  disregard  of  all  science),  and  yet  refuses  to  acknowledge  .lesus  as  the 
God-man.  Such  an  one  may  get  a  mere  man,  but  assuredly  not  a  morally  pure 
one,  or  a  pattern  of  true  humanity ;  his  mere  man  must  necessarily  be  a  visionary 
and  a  deceiver”  (Uhlhoru,  uhi  sup.  p.  25). 


LECT.  VL] 


RENAN’S  “  VIE  DE  JESUS.” 


435 


ceived.”  For  every  man  who  still  lias  a  moral  consciousness 
must  feel  that  lohoever  is  capable  of  employmg  such  means  is 
not  competent  to  release  mankind  from  sin  and  error,  and 
morally  regenerate  it;  or,  on  the  otlier  hand,  that  if  such  in¬ 
fluences  really  did  proceed  from  Christ,  He  must  have  been 
different  to  what  Eenan  represents  Him. 

When  any  one  can  do  such  despite  to  history  and  its 
records  as  to  impute  moral  faults  to  Christ,  this  fundamentally 
false  view  of  the  centre  must  dislocate  the  whole  history  which 
is  grouped  around  it.  He  who  makes  Christ  develope  morally 
downwards  instead  of  divinely  upwards,  is  capable,  ay,  is 
compelled,  to  turn  all  else  upside  down.  And  this  is  actually 
the  case  in  the  work  before  us.  The  death  of  Christ  is  a 
redemption  for  himself,  from  the  difficulties  of  his  impracti¬ 
cable  role,  instead  of  a  redemption  for  us  ;  in  fact,  the  whole 
work  of  Christ,  instead  of  being  accomplished  step  by  step  up 
to  the  last  word,  “  It  is  finished,”  is  less  accomplished  the 
longer  it  is  carried  on,  till  at  length  it  becomes  absolutely 
“  impracticable.”  The  resurrection,  or  the  disciples’  belief  in 
it,  instead  of  being  a  divine  release  from  all  doubts  and  con¬ 
flicts,  is  rather  the  occasion  of  endless  errors  and  enthusiastic 
lies.  Christianity  itself,  this  manly  religion  of  self-denial  and 
self-conquest,  becomes  a  “  movement  amongst  women  and 
children  ;  ”  and  the  whole  history  of  the  world  and  the  Church, 
instead  of  being  founded  on  divinely  certain  facts,  rests  on 
the  hallucinations  of  a  nervously-affected  .woman  ! ! 

Truly  the  historical  difficulties  and  psychological  impossi¬ 
bilities  in  Eenan’s  view  of  the  life  of  Christ  are  far  more 
numerous  than  in  that  of  Strauss.  For  Eenan  does  not  delay 
the  formation  of  legends  till  after  the  death  of  Christ,  but 
boldly  includes  it  in  His  life.  He  who  said  “  I  am  the 
Truth,”  must  Himself  stand  and  see  how  falsehood  grows  up 
around  Him  and  be  silent,  nay,  even  help  !  Moreover,  the 
way  in  which  Eenan  treats  the  Gospels  is  far  more  arbitrary 
than  the  method  either  of  Strauss  or  Schenkel ;  which  is  all 
the  more  inexcusable,  inasmuch  as  Eenan  considers  these 
writings  to  be  essentially  genuine.^  Often  a  piece  is  taken  as 

This  arbitrary  dealing  is  only  equalled  by  Renan’s  exerjetical  incapacity.  Of 
this  he  gives  some  perfectly  astounding  proofs.  E.cj.  the  pai  able  of  the  rich 
man  and  Lazarus  he  explains  thus;  “The  rich  man  is  in  hell  because  he  is 


MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT.  VL 


4  36 


true  down  to  the  smallest  detail,  when  another  close  by 
(merely  from  an  aversion  to  tlie  supernatural)  is  declared  to 
be  a  legend.  And  not  only  this,  but  the  various  passages  are 
shuffled  together  like  a  pack  of  cards,  ivitliout  the  least  regard 
to  chronology  or  the  plan  of  the  evangelists,  and  then  put 
together  again  according  to  a  self-invented  chronology.  Eenan 
is  bold  enough  to  falricate  an  entire  'period  in  Christ's  ministry 
about  'which  ')iot  one  of  the  Gospels  tells  anything.  According  to 
all  four  Gospels  (and  even  according  to  Strauss,  Schenkel,  and 
Keim),  Christ  meets  with  the  Baptist  before  the  beginning  of 
His  public  ministry.  But  Eenan  transfers  this  meeting  to  the 
beginning  of  the  second  period,  and  represents  it  as  preceded 
by  the  first  period  of  pure  moral  teaching;  which,  however,  he 
fills  up  with  words  and  works  of  Jesus  which  are  related  by 
all  the  Gospels  as  taking  place  after  tliat  meeting  (as  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  etc.).  According  to  all  the  four 
Gospels,  the  first  disciples  are  called  by  the  Lord  at  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  His  ministry ;  according  to  Eenan,  this  circle  is  not 
formed  till  the  second  period.  All  four  evangelists  relate 
miracles  of  our  Lord  from  the  very  beginning  of  His  public 
appearance;  according  to  Eenan,  it  is  at  a  much  later  period 
that  He  permits  Llimself  to  be  forced  by  popular  pressure  to 
assume  the  character  of  a  miracle-worker.  Is  this  the  method 
of  a  conscientious  historian  ? 

In  addition  to  this,  Eenan  everywhere  unhlushwgly  lets  his 
fancy  paint  cuicl  speak  for  him ;  and  in  the  most  frivolous 
manner  brings  in  details  about  which  he  knows  nothing  what- 
ever,  in  order  to  give  his  story  more  freshness  and  vividness. 
As  soon  as  the  picture  of  Christ  threatens  to  become  too  lean  and 
insignificant,  by  reason  of  the  denial  of  all  that  is  miracidous, 
Eenan  knows  how  to  supply  what  is  lacking  from  his  imagina¬ 
tion.  We  learn  things  that  are  entirely  new  to  us,  and  for  which 

rich, —because  he  dines  well  whilst  others  before  his  door  are  dining  ill.”  For 
this  reason  Luke  is  supposed  to  be  “an  excited  democrat  and  Ebionite,  i.e. 
most  hostile  to  property,  and  persuaded  that  the  vengeance  of  the  poor  would 
soon  come.”  His  Gospel  has  a  “  communistic  tendency  !  ”  Here  again  we  see 
how  modern  French  conditions  of  life  are  dated  back  to  the  beginning  of  the 
Christian  era.  From  ]\Iatt.  xxii.  1-14  Henan  concludes  “  that  pure  Ebionism— 
i.e.  the  doctrine  tlrat  tlie  poor  are  to  be  saved,  and  their  kingdom  is  coming— 
was  the  dcadrine  of  Christ !  ”  lienan  does  not  seem  to  l)ave  a  notion  that  this 
parable  applies  to  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  and  the  calling  oi  Christ’s  Church 
from  amongst  the  Gentiles. 


LECT.  VI.]  REXAN’S  "  VIE  DE  JESUS.”  437 

we  should  he  most  grateful  if  they  were  not  entirely  imaginary. 
Eenan  can  tell  us  all  about  the  teachers  of  Christ ;  the  books 
that  He  read  in  His  young  days  ;  His  youthful  tendency  to 
zealotism ;  His  sisters,  who  Eenan  knows  were  married  in 
Nazareth ;  about  the  children  of  Peter;  about  Judas,  who  “most 
likely  ”  led  a  harmless  life  on  his  estate  of  Hakeldama,  etc., 
etc.  On  the  other  hand,  what  the  Gospels  know  and  tell,  he 
often  ignores  or  thinks  he  knows  better.  Thus,  in  contradic¬ 
tion  to  the  Gospels,  he  knows  that  the  family  of  David  was 
entirely  extinct  at  the  time  of  Christ’s  birth.  According  to 
the  Gospels,  Jesus  travels  on  foot,  so  that  He  becomes  “  wearied 
with  the  journey”  (John  iv.  6) ;  but  Eenan  knows  that  in  His 
progress  through  Galilee  He  “  used  a  mule.  Every  now  and 
then  the  disciples  would  display  around  his  person  a  rustic 
pomp,  at  the  expense  of  their  own  clothes,  which  served  the 
purpose  of  carpets.  They  laid  them  on  the  mule  which 
bore  him,  or  spread  them  before  him  on  the  earth.”  All 
this  Eenan’s  imagination  extracts  from  Matt.  xxi.  7,  8,  with 
such  slight  changes  as  making  the  ass  into  a  mule,  con¬ 
verting  the  incident  which  took. place  once  in  Jerusedem  into 
an  oft-repeated  hahit  in  Galilee,  and  making  the  disciples 
spread  their  garments  on  the  road,  which  in  ver.  8  is  done 
only  by  the  'peo'ple.  He  also  knows  that  Jesus,  who  was  pleased 
with  the  “  straightforward  and  lively  character  of  Peter,  some- ' 
times  condescended  to  smile  at  his  very  decided  ways.”  .  .  . 

“  A  naive  doubt  was  sometimes  raised  amongst  the  disciples, 
but  Jesus  with  a  smile  or  a  look  silenced  the  objection.” 
Where  else  are  we  told  about  Jesus  smiling  ?  The  wife  of 
Pilate,  Eenan  supposes,  perhaps  saw  the  “  gentle  Galilean  from 
a  window  of  the  palace,  which  looked  out  on  to  the  heights  of 
the  temple.”  (But  according  to  Josephus  the  palace  lay  on 
the  hill  of  Zion,  in  the  upper  town,  so  that  this  outlook  was 
not  possible.)  All  this  sounds  as  lifelike  as  if  Eenan  himself 
had  been  an  eye-witness  of  the  events,  and '  yet  it  is  mere 
vapour  and  false  paint  applied  to  real  events.  How  grand, 
when  compared  with  this  sensational  depiction,  is  the  terse 
and  chaste  style,  the  holy  gravity  of  the  Gospels ! 

After  this  we  cannot  wonder  that  Eenan  should  put  words 
into  the  mouth  of  Christ  which  He  never  spoke ;  exj.  that  the 
law  was  abolished,  whereas  He  plainly  said,  “  I  am  not  come 


438  MODEIJN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT.  VI. 

lo  destroy  the  law,  hut  to  fulfil  it.”  Christ  said,  “  Destroy 
[ye]  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up  ”  (John 
ii.  19) ;  and  the  false  witnesses  clianged  this  into :  "  I  am  able 
to  destroy  the  temple  of  God,  and  to  build  it  again  in  three 
days”  (Matt.  xxvi.  60,  61;  Mark  xiv.  57-59);  but  this  does 
not  prevent  Eenan  from  assuring  us  that  “Jesus  really  pro¬ 
nounced  these  fatal  M’ords.” 

Eespected  hearers,  can  a  book  which  professes  to  be  history 
be  more  full  of  w’eak  points  and  blunders  ?  The  same  ques¬ 
tion,  as  in  the  case  of  Strauss  and  Schenkel,  returns  to  us  with 
redoubled  force  :  Is  a  man  like  this  ca2Kible  of  writing  history^ — 
one  who  draws  on  his  imagination  in  the  way  we  have  seen, 
who  brings  in  an  entirely  new  chronology  of  his  own,  taken 
from  elsewhere  ;  one  who,  to  judge  by  the  solecisms  we  have 
cited,^  has  not  even  carefully  examined  the  passages  in  ques¬ 
tion  ;  one  who  paints  Christ  and  His  times  in  the  colours  of 
the  present  Parisian  "svorld ; — can  any  confidence  be  placed  in 
him  ?  And  yet  the  present  generation,  from  excess  of  criticism, 
has  become  so  uncritical  as  to  go  by  hundreds  of  thousands 
(I  am  not  exaggerating)  to  hear  the  history  of  all  histories 
I'rom  a  man  who  has  laid  himself  open  to  so  many  charges ! 
If  one  who  M^ere  writing  the  life  of  Luther  or  Hapoleon 
thus  gave  the  reins  to  his  fancy,  we  should  expunge  his 
.name  from  the  list  of  historians  and  place  him  among  the 
novelists ;  and  this  we  must  do  to  Eenan.  But  at  the  source 
of  history,  if  anywhere,  only  history  should  be  written,  and 
not  novels. 

A  novel — this  is  the  only  true  title  of  his  book  with  its 
constant  mixture  of  truth  and  fiction,  of  historical  fragments 
and  subjective  imagination.  The  efteminatc,  unhealthy,  morbid 
tone  of  the  modern  Prench  novel,  with  its  utter  want  of 
moral  consciousness,  permeates  the  whole  work.  Hence  the 
peculiarly  tentative  style,  with  its  constantly-recurring  “  pro¬ 
bably  ” — “  most  likely  ” — “  to  all  appearance  ” — “  well-nigh,”  ^ 


'  One  of  the  most  flagrant  amongst  tlie  many  not  mentioned  is  the  school- 
hoy’s  error  of  confounding  Hellenes  (Greeks)  and  Hellenists  (Greek- speaking 
JeAvs). 

-  Renan  is  inexhaustible  in  such  phrases  as,  “  11  faut  supposer — on  est  ten  to 
de  croire — il  semble — il  parait — probablement — peut-etre — on  dit — a  ce  que  Ton 
croit — je  soup9onne— qui  salt — si  je  puis  le  dire,”  etc. 


LECT.  VI.] 


EENAN’S  “  VIE  DE  JESUS.” 


439 


which  are  not  wanting  in  any  important  passages,  and  hetray 
an  involuntary  distrust  of  his  imaginative  hypothesis.  Like 
most  modern  'bmnx  esprits,  Eeuan  always  uses  gentle  approxi¬ 
mations.  A  real  colour  is  too  rough  and  painful  to  sensitive 
eyes,  so  we  always  have  shadings.  It  is  only  consistent  of 
Eenan  finally  to  shade  over  the  cardinal  difference  between 
the  colours  of  all  human  acts,  i.e.  to  efface  the  distinction 
between  good  and  evil,  and  to  represent  even  that  which  is 
best  and  most  beneficent  as  always  mixed  with  evil.  This 
brings  us  to  the  f  undamental  error  of  Ms  standptoint ;  the 
panthcizing  negation  of  the  supernatural,  and  consequently  the 
absence  of  moral  feeling.  Eenan’s  God  is  not  the  God  of 
Scripture,  the  free  personal  Creator  of  the  world.  This  is 
shown,  not  only  by  many  pantheistic  sentences  in  his  book, 
some  of  which  he  puts  into  Christ’s  mouth,  but  also  by  other 
utterances  ^  in  which  he  declares  his  leaning  to  Hegel.  He 
does  not  attribute  self-consciousness  to  God,  but  only  a  pro¬ 
gressive  development  in  His  self-knowledge  from  the  stone 
and  the  plant  upwards  to  Buddha  and  Christ.^  We  must  not 
let  ourselves  be  deceived  as  to  this  by  the  religious  warmth 
of  tone  in  his  Vie  de  Jesus.  But  what  does  he  mean  by 
continuing  to  talk  of  a  heavenly  Father  ?  If  Jesus  did  so, 
then  even  He  could  not  have  attained  to  the  “  pure  idea,”  i.e. 
the  pantheistic  conception  of  God. 

This  false  fundamental  view  may  explain  to  us  the  surpris¬ 
ing  ohsc2iration  of  moral  consciousness  which  strikes  us  in  such 
sentences  as  these :  that  for  the  success  of  what  is  good  “  less 
pure  ways  are  necessary  “  the  best  cause  is  only  won  by 
ill  means ;  we  must  accept  men  as  they  are,  with  all  their 
illusions,  and  thus  endeavour  to  work  upon  them ;  France 
would  not  be  what  it  is  (probably  not !)  if  it  had  not  lor  a 
thousand  years  believed  in  the  flask  of  holy  oil  at  Eheims ; 
when  we  with  our  scrupulous  regard  for  truth  have  accom¬ 
plished  what  the  heroes  did  by  their  deceptions,  then,  and  not 
till  then,  shall  we  have  a  right  to  blame  them  :  the  only 

•  Cl.  Renan’s  letter  to  Bertliolet,  Itevue  des  deux  Mondes,  1863  ;  also  Ulilliorn, 
uhi  sup.  p.  28. 

-  He  considers  God  to  be  “le  lieu  de  I’ideal,  le  principe  vivnnt  dn  bien,”  etc. 
“  La  these  i'ondanientale  de  toute  notre  tlieologie  ”  is  the  axiom  that  “  Dieu  est 
immanent,  non  seulement  dans  I’ensemble  de  ruuivers,  inais  dans  chacuu  des 
etres  gui  le  composent  ”  {ubi  sup.). 


440  MOD'ERX  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT.  VI. 

culprit  in  such  cases  is  mankind,  who  wants  to  be  cheated.” 
Instead  of  destroying  the  delusions  ot  mankind,  we  are  merely 
to  let  them  he,  and  to  use  them  cleverly,  cheat  those  who  wmnt 
to  he  cheated,  and  not  shun  false  i^aint  and  ill  mieans  in  order 
to  attain  our  end  !  Here  w^e  see  the  democrat  turn  into  a 
Jesuit.  But  these  are  the  morals  of  Barisian  circles — the  truly 
French  confusion  between  momentary,  outward  success,  and 
real,  durable,  though  slowly  progressing  moral  welfare  and 
blessing.  And  these  are  the  moral  sentiments  of  one  who 
wushes  to  reduce  Christianity  to  its  purely  moral  basis  while 
doing  away  with  all  dogmas.  Here  we  may  learn  what  sort 
of  morals  we  may  expect  to  result  from  this  process.  For 
Eenan  does  not  only  give  theory,  he  immediately  carries  his 
maxims  into  practice  in  his  book.  He  knows  the  illusions  of 
the  public  with  whom  he  has  to  deal,  and  chooses  its  weak 
side,  the  love  of  novels,  in  order  to  attain  great  success.  We 
see  that  he  is  wanting  in  that  very  quality  which  is  onost 
important  for  the  exegete  and  for  the  historian,  Mz.  moral 
conscientiousness.  Hot  only — like  Strauss — does  he  not 
believe  in  an  absolute  moral  pei'fection,  but  not  even  in  the 
'power  of  pure  truth.  He  thinks  that  it  must  always  be  assisted 
by  some  false  paint  and  deception ;  whereas  we  all  know  that 
the  whole  history  of  the  wmrld,  but  still  more  that  of  God’s 
kingdom,  is  one  long  proof  that  the  truth  is  strong  and  invincible 
in  proportion  as  it  is  pure  and  ^tnadulteratcd.  The  more 
unadorned  it  is,  the  more  durable — though  not  always  speedy 
— are  its  effects,  and  every  admixture  of  falsehood  and  fraud 
weakens  it  and  threatens  its  life.^  But  a  view  of  the  world 
wdiich  is  so  corrupt  as  to  deny  this  can  only  be  pitied,  not 
combated !  .  .  . 

And  now,  "  what  think  ye  of  Christ,”  and  what  of  His 
anti-miraculous  biographers  ?  Perhaps  some  of  my  hearers 
may  have  thought  the  judgment  passed  on  them  (which,  how¬ 
ever,  is  one  wdth  that  of  the  greatest  critics)  somewhat  hard 
Those  who  think  so,  I  would  merely  ask  one  question  :  Do  you 

*  “  Truth  needs  no  colour  with  his  colour  fix’d ; 

Beauty  no  pencil,  beauty’s  truth  to  lay ; 

But  best  is  best,  if  never  intermix’d.” 

Skakspeare,  Sonnet  ci. 


LECT.  VI.] 


COKCLUSION. 


441 


know  what  accusation  is  brought  by  those  who  deny  the 
Gcdhead  of  Christ  against  us  who  confess  and  defend  it,  ay, 
and  against  the  whole  Church  ?  In  virtue  of  this  denial  they 
'practically  accuse  us  of  idolatry,  and  of  a  continuous  most 
aggravated  offence  against  the  majesty  of  God,  because  we 
wmrship  Jesus  who  is  a  mere  man.  They  accuse  Christ  Him¬ 
self  at  least  of  caring  worse  for  His  Church  than  Mohammed 
did  for  his.  For  whereas  the  latter  taudit  and  recorded  in 

o 

writing  the  exclusive  Unity  of  the  Godhead  so  clearly  that  it 
is  well-nigh  impossible  for  his  followers  to  become  idolaters, 
Christ  spoke  so  auibiguously  in  many  discourses  about  His 
unique  and  superhuman  relation  to  God,  that  His  disciples 
and  His  Church  not  only  were  able,  but  were  almost  com¬ 
pelled,  to  fall  into  deep  idolatry !  Why  did  He  not  speak 
more  clearly  in  order  to  preclude  this  great  evil  ?  More  than 
this.  By  the  assertion  that  Christ  was  not  the  Son  of  God 
(in  a  superhuman  sense),  our  opponents  (though  they  will  not 
confess  it)  affirm  that  the  sentence  passed  on  Him,  because  of 
blasphemy,  was  the  justest  verdict  ever  pronounced  !  Nothing 
hut  His  true  and  real  divinity  can  save  Him.  from  the  accusation 
of  hlasphcniy,  and  us  from  the  chamge  oj  idolatry  ! 

This,  then,  without  mincing  the  matter,  is  the  issue  between 
us  and  our  opponents.  Who  can  be  angry  with  us  for  not 
allowing  this  slur  to  be  cast  upon  our  Lord,  upon  the  goodly 
host  of  His  followers,  and  upon  ourselves  ;  or  who  chide  us 
for  rebutting  such  a  charge  with  all  our  energy  ?  How  can 
preachers  of  tolerance  be  so  devoid  oi  understanding  as  to 
demand  that  we  should  give  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  to 
these  opponents,  and  acknowledge  the  justification  of  their 
standpoint  in  the  Christian  Church,  whilst  they  declare  the 
central  truth  of  our  belief,  as  it  has  hitherto  stood,  to  be  a 
deception  ? 

Here  stands  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  around  Him  His 
accusers,  and  their  witness  agreeth  not  together  ”  in  many 
points,  neither  in  their  treatment  of  the  Gospels  as  historical 
records,  nor  in  their  apprehension  of  passages  taken  singly. 
Let  us  now  comprise  in  a  few  sentences  what  is  common  to 
them  as  a  body,  and  compare  it  with  our  old  confession  of 
belief  in  Christ.  You  will  then  see  at  once  the  depth  of  the 
chasm  which  separates  us  ; — 


442 


MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [lECT,  VI. 


THE  CHURCH. 


THE  ANTI-MIRACULISTS. 


I  believe  in  Jesus  Christ. 

The  only-begotten  Son  of 
God. 

Our  Lord. 

Who  was  conceived  by  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

Born  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 

Suffered  under  Pontius 
Pilate. 

Was  crucified,  dead,  and 
buried. 

He  descended  into  hell. 

The  third  day  He  rose  again 
from  the  dead. 

He  ascended  into  heaven. 


And  sitte*h  on  the  right 
liand  of  God  the  Father 
Almighty. 

From  thence  He  shall  come 
to  judge  the  quick  and  the 
dead. 


I  believe  in  Jesus,  who  allowed  himself  to  be 
called  Christ  (or  Messiah). 

The  (illegitimate)  son  of  Joseph  the  carpenter. 

Our  brother,  who  himself  was  not  quite  free  from 
sin  and  error. 

Who  was  naturally  begotten  and  conceived. 

Born  of  Mar}^,  the  wife  (?). 

Who  (merely  on  account  of  his  resistance  to  the 
rulers)  suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate. 

Was  crucified,  dead,  and  probably  “  ha.stily  in¬ 
terred  in  some  dishonourable  burying-place.  ” 

(?) 

Piemained  in  deafh,  and  did  not  rise  again,  but 
was  only  in  after  years  believed  to  have  done  so. 

Whose  body  decayed  in  the  grave,  whilst  his 
spirit  was  raised  to  heaven,  if  indeed  there  be 
such  a  thing  as  immortality  and  eternal  bliss. 

(?) 


Who  also  spoke  of  his  second  coming — which  was 
either  visionaiy  or  else  intended  impersonally 
— and  of  his  judging  the  world,  which  was 
undue  self-exaltation. 


If  any  one  is  suited  by  this  non-miracnlons  Christ,  we 
demand  of  him,  with  Strauss,  that  he  shoul-d  cease  to  speak  of 
Him  as  the  “  Eedeemer.”  If  he  is  a  clergyman,  let  him  no 
longer  read  prayers  to  Christ  in  the  Church  or  at  the  grave, 
and  let  him  be  honourable  and  straightforward  enough  to  give 
liis  new  religion  a  ncio  name.  He  wlio  no  longer  believes  in 
Christ  as  the  divine,  sinless,  and  holy  Eedeemer,  no  longer 
stands  wiiliin  the  fate  of  Christianit7j ,  though  he  may  still  hold 
on  to  a  few  tatters  of  Christian  morals.  Eor  the  Christian 
religion  is,  and  remains,  nought  else  than  the  belief  in  the 
redemption  accomplished  by  Christ  the  Son  of  God.  This  doc¬ 
trinal  foundation,  which  was  laid  by  Christ  and  His  apostles, 
cannot  be  given  up  by  the  Christian  Church  to  all  ages  with¬ 
out  giving  up  herself.  In  so  saying,  we  lift  up  no  stones 
against  those  who  have  thus  radically  broken  with  the  belief 
of  the  Church;  in  matters  of  faith  and  conscience  we  abhor  all 
measures  of  force  as  wrong  and  liurtfnl  to  the  cause  of  Christ ; 
we  would  allo^v  to  every  man  the  fullest  freedom  to  investi¬ 
gate  for  himself,  and  decide  freely  for  of  against  our  old 


LECT.  VI.] 


CONCLUSION. 


443 


Christian  faith.  But  if  this  decision  fall  out  against  it,  we 
demand  an  open  and  honourable  breach,  and  protest  aloud 
against  those  who  notwithstanding  proclaim  as  Christianity — 
ay,  and  even  as  a  higher,  purer  form  of  Christianity — that 
which  deals  a  death-blow  at  the  heart  of  the  Christian  faith. 
And  while,  as  a  matter  of  course,  we  do  battle  for  this  central 
truth,  we  feel  that  we  have  a  right  to  do  so,  not  only  because 
we  have  experienced  the  power  of  the  truth  in  our  otvm  hearts, 
but  also  hecansc,  of  the  scientific  weahncss  and  untenablencss  of 
our  opponents'  position. 

Looking  back  upon  the  way  which  we  have  gone,  and 
passing  by  all  details,  we  may  comprehend  the  weak  points 
in  the  anti-miraculous  accounts  of  the  life  of  Christ  under  the 
following  heads : — 

1.  Their  authors  are  devoid  of  that  true  historical  perception 
which  does  not  make  its  own  subjective  axioms  the  ^criterion 
of  what  is  historically  possible,  but  which  lets  the  records  say 
what  they  do  say,  and  weighs  their  truth  according  to  the 
historical  effects  which  the  events  related  in  them  have  had 
and  are  still  having.  Instead  of  this,  we  find  that  both 
nationalism  of  every  sort  and  Mythicism  exhibit  a  boundless 
caprice  in  their  treatment  of  the  records ;  the  former  in  its  expo¬ 
sition  of  them,  the  latter  in  the  way  it  cuts  them  down,  i.e. 
both  in  their  elimination  of  the  .supernatural  element.  The 
standard  of  possibility  Avhich  they  apply  to  all  that  is  contained 
in  these  records  is  their  own  unproved  (and  unprovable  be¬ 
cause  false)  presupposition  that  the  miraculous  is  impossible. 
Whence  their  right  to  apply  this  standard  ?  Certainly  not 
from  Him  who  has  said,  “  My  ways  are  not  your  ways,”  but 
solely  from  their  own  good  pleasure.  And  what  else  is  this, 
if  we  examine  it  closely,  than  a  tremendous  presumption  1 
They  alone,  at  least  as  regards  their  anti-miraculous  axioms, 
are  absolutely  free  from  error :  whatever  militates  against  these 
cannot  have  happened.  History  must  be  suited  to  their  tastes, 
instead  of  their  learning  from  history,  and  widening  the  narrow¬ 
ness  of  their  own  ideas  to  suit  the  greatness  of  divine  actions. 
Is  this  historical  perception  or  presumption  ?  Whoever 
approaches  the  treatment  of  a  difficult  historical  problem 
without  a  humble  desire  for  instruction,  will  be  sure  to  pro¬ 
duce  an  abortion;  above  all,  in  the  treatment  of  a  subject 


444  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [LECT.  VI. 

•which  should  never  be  approached  otherwise  than  with  the 
feeling,  “  Put  oft  thy  shoes  from  oft  thy  feet,  for  the  place 
whereon  thou  standest  is  holy  ground.” 

2.  Our  opponents  do  not  explain  ivhat  piost  needs  explanation, 
viz.  the  existence  of  the  Christian  Church,  with  its  wonderlul 
historical  development,  its  moral  influence,  the  spiritual  and 
temporal  blessings  which  it  has  brought  to  nations  and  indi¬ 
viduals.  Let  any  impartial  person  look  at  that  very  natural 
human  demagogue  of  Schenkel’s,  or  at  that  Galilean  Eabhi  of 
Strauss’,  who  finally  is  guilty  of  “undue  self-exaltation,”  or  at 
that  enthusiast  and  deceiver  of  Pienan’s  who  is  constantly 
sinking  deeper  in  the  mire  ;  and  then  let  him  say  whether  any 
of  these  characters  will  afford  a  sufticient  explanation  of  such 
far-reaching  and  mighty  events  ?  Xo  !  must  be  the  answer — 
none  but  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels,  the  only-begotten  Son  of 
God,  is  great  and  mighty  enough  for  us  to  attach  such  results 
to  His  holy  name  !  The  very  existence  of  the  Church  is  in  itself 
the  strongest  proof  for  the  truth  of  the  gosjpel  history.  By  its 
fruits  the  truth  may  be  known  to  this  day.  Error  may  poropa- 
gate  itself,  hut  only  for  a  time.  The  undiniinished — nay,  the 
ever-increasing — power  of  the  gospel  after  the  lapse  of  1800 
years,  is  proof  enough  that  its  contents  are  not  legends  and 
myths,  but  eternal  truths. 

3.  These  accounts  do  not  explain  to  ns  the  Person  of  Christ, 
notwithstanding — or  rather  because  of — its  depression  to  the 
level  of  natural  human  development.  The  issue  on  this  ques¬ 
tion  is  simple.  Here  is  a  series  of  discourses  and  actions 
wdiich  the  four  Gospels  attribute  to  Christ  (even  taking  into 
account  merely  what  is  common  to  all,  and  undisputed).  But 
no  ordinary  man  can  have  said  and  done,  or  pretended  to 
do,  these  things,  without  laying  himself  open  to  the  reproach 
of  arrogance,  self-exaltation,  fanaticism,  and  fraud.  Hence 
the  anti-miraculists  are  absolutely  compelled  to  question 
Christ’s  sinlessness  and  freedom  from  error.  Their  merely 
human  Christ  no  longer  represents  true,  i.e.  pure,  humanity. 
Here,  too,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  Christian  Church,  i.e.  a 
world-wide  series  of  wholesome  moral  influences  wEich  pro¬ 
ceeded  from  this  Person.  How  can  both  these  things  be 
reconciled  ?  They  are  a  complete  enigma.  For  if  Jesus  acted 
and  spoke  as  a  deceiver,  then  the  moral  effects  of  His  teaching 


LECT,  VI.] 


CONCLUSION. 


445 


are  inconceivable.  But  since  these  effects  are  indubitably 
certain,  it  follows  that  Christ  cannot  have  been  a  visionary  or 
a  deceiver,  nor  can  He  have  acted  as  such.  But  if  He  truly 
*  spoke  and  actually  did  what  is  related,  then  He  was  no  mere 
man,  but  the  Son  of  God. 

4.  They  do  not  even  cxiolain  to  us  whence  the  Christ  imaged 
forth  in  the  Gospels  originated.  How  came  Galilean  fishermen 
to  invent  an  ideal  of  moral  and  spiritual  majesty  such  as  has 
never  been  attained  in  history,  poetry,  or  philosophy,  if  it 
did  not  walk  before  them  in  person  ?  All  endeavours  to 
explain  this  by  means  of  myths  and  legends,  later  inventions 
and  exaggerations,  accord  neither  with  the  character  of  that 
age,  nor  with  the  spirit  and  style  of  the  Gospels,  nor  with  the 
testimony  of  confessedly  genuine  Pauline  epistles,  nor  with 
the  character  of  the  primitive  Christian  Church,  nor  yet  with 
the  behaviour  of  its  opponents. 

5.  Not  one  oj  these  accounts  in  the  least  satisfies  the  needs  of 
the  heart,  which,  above  all,  the  gospel  is  assuredly  intended  to 
meet.  He  who  yearns  after  help  and  consolation,  peace  and 
freedom,  for  a  burdened  conscience,  an  aching  heart,  or  a  rest¬ 
less  doubting  spirit,  cannot  look  for  this  from  a  Jesus  who 
has  ceased  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world. 

6.  Every  one  of  these  accounts  is  based  up)on  a  false  concep¬ 
tion  of  God,  either  deistic  or  pantheistia  Together  with  their 
negation  of  the  miraculous,  they  deny  the  free,  living,  personal 
God  and  Creator.  Their  whole  tendency  is  to  do  away  with 
Christ  as  the  great  Witness  for.  a  supernatural  world,  and  to 
“  disable  ”  His  testimony  against  the  modern  naturalistic  views. 
In  so  doing  they  lose  the  Father  as  well  as  the  Son ;  or  more 
correctly,  because  they  will  not  know  the  Father,  they  cannot 
know  the  Son. 

However,  we  may  learn  something  from  all  our  opponents, 
even  from  these.  Fundamentally  false  though  their  anti- 
miraculous  standpoint  may  be,  yet  they  contain  certain  elements 
of  truth,  just  as  the  cognate  systems  of  Deism  and  Pantheism. 
Does  not  the  applause  with  which  they  were  received  proceed 
partly  from  the  fact  that  the  Church  has  not,  as  yet,  given  to 
the  world  an  entirely  correct  representation  of  the  life  of 
Christ  ?  True,  here  below  the  Church  will  never  fully  see 
through  the  great  divine  mystery  of  His  Person;  what  the 


446  MODERN  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  [LECT.  VI. 

apostles  did  not  succeed  in  will  scarcely  be  accoraplisbed  by 
men  of  our  own  day.  A  perfect  representation  of  Clirist  can 
only  be  expected  by  one  who  does  not  believe  that  we  know 
in  part.  Nevertheless,  since  these  late  disputes,  certain 
theologians  have  truly  pointed  out  that  the  Church  has  pro¬ 
ceeded  in  too  one-sided  and  dogmatic  a  manner  in  her  delinea¬ 
tions  of  the  Person  of  Christ.^  It  cannot  be  denied  that  there 
is  a  considerable  gulf  between  the  portrait  of  Christ  in  the 
Gospels  and  that  of  our  dogmatic  writings.  In  tlie  latter  we 
often  miss  the  living  historical  reality  of  the  Saviour.  What 
with  the  great  stress  laid  on  the  two  separate  factors,  His 
humanity  and  His  divinity,  we  have  lost  the  living  unity  of 
the  Person,  the  human  and  historical  element  in  Christ ;  His 
learning  obedience  in  constant  and  free  self-surrender  to  His 
Father’s  will  has  been  neglected  as  against  His  divine  nature. 

At  this  point  of  her  doctrinal  development  the  CJiurch  has 
still  much  to  learn  with  regard  to  the  great  Christological 
problem  of  the  present  day,— a  problem  so  great  and  difficult 
that  it  will  never  be  more  than  approximately  solved.  Yet 
we  shall  constantly  approach  towards  its  final  solution,  if  only 
we  do  not  forget,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  genuinely  human 
does  not  stand  in  absolute  antithesis  to  the  divine,  but  is 
intimately  related  to  it ;  whereas,  on  the  other  hand,  in  a  race 
degenerated  through  sin,  this  true  humanity  cannot  be  fully 
brought  out  except  by  a  fresh  engrafting  of  the  divine.  The 
true,  the  perfectly  beautiful,  humanity  of  Christ  is  so  far  from 
being  annihilated  by  His  divinity,  that  it  is  only  the  latter 
which  completes  and  guarantees  the  former.^ 

Let  us  therefore  beware  of  sacrificing  the  divine  nature  of 
Christ  to  His  humanity,  and  of  removing  the  stumbling-block 
of  His  God-manhood  at  the  expense  of  His  supernatural  glory. 
This  dangerous  extreme  will  best  be  avoided  by  constantly 
allowing  the  perfect  sinlessness,  the  unique  moral  dignity  of 
Christ,  to  work  upon  our  hearts  and  consciences.  In  view  of 
this,  the  more  earnestly  a  man  feels  his  sin,  the  more  deeply 
will  he  be  convinced  that  the  divine  Sonship  of  Christ  far 
transcends  all  natural  humanity.  And  finally,  let  us  cast 

'  CP.  Lntliardt,  uhi  sup.  pp.  11  et  ss. 

*  Witness  the  perfectly  heautiful  humanity  of  Christ,  combined  with  His  no 
less  perfect  divinity,  in  the  Gospel  ot  St.  John. 


LECT.  VI.] 


CONCLUSION. 


447 


into  the  scale  the  fact  that  this  same  divine  Chiist  of  the 
Gospels  at  this  day  is  still  a'p'provinrj  Himself  to  the  sonls  of 
men  as  the  One  who  of  God  is  made  unto  ns  wisdom  and 
righteousness,  sanctification  and  redemption.  This,  we  know 
in  our  inmost  hearts,  is  no  delusion  of  fahle  or  fancy  ;  and 
this  drives  us  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  historical  portrait 
given  by  the  evangelists  of  the  Son  of  God  is  safe  against  all 
attacks. 

Jesus  Christ  is  not  only,  as  many  at  the  present  day  would 
have  it,  a  great  Question;  He  is  far  rather  the  Divine  Answer 
to  all  human  questions  and  complaints.  If  we  look  at  Him 
merely  as  a  Question,  He  becomes  more  and  more  unintel¬ 
ligible.  Let  us  rather  strive'  to  understand  Him  as  the 
Answer  to  that  most  vital  question  of  our  hearts :  Who  shall 
save  me  from  sin  and  death  ?  Then  shall  we  soon  learn  to 
believe  and  confess,  “  Thou  art  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living 
God!” 


SEVENTH  LECTUEE. 


MODERN  DENIALS  OF  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST. 

HE  discussion  of  this  question  is,  as  it  were,  the  final 


test  of  all  that  has  gone  before.  What  I  have  hitherto 
been  seeking  to  establish  was  the  belief  in  the  supernatural, 
in  the  miraculous  power  of  the  living  God  as  rnaniCested  in 
His  being  and  His  revelations,  and  especially  in  the  history  of 
His  Son  upon  earth.  All  these  miracles  culminate  in  the 
resurrection  of  Christ.  If  this  be  established  as  true,  then  all 
else  stands  firm  ;  if  it  be  a  legend,  then  little  more  can  be 
saved.  Therefore  the  investigation  of  this  fact  is  peculiarly 
adapted  to  serve  as  a  test  for  the  results  which  we  have 
hitherto  attained.  For  the  dogma  of  the  resurrection  is  the  ' 
IJroof  of  all  other  dogmas,  the  foundation  of  our  Christian  life 
and  hope,  the  sold  of  the  entire  apostolic  preaching,  the  corner¬ 
stone  on  whieh  the  Christian  Church  is  huilt. 

We  will  first  make  ourselves  acquainted  with  the  views 
and  statements  of  our  anti-miraculous  opponents  ;  after  this 
we  shall  proceed  to  investigate  the  historical  testimonies — 
especially  that  of  Paul — and  the  arguments  of  those  who 
reject  them ;  and  foially,  we  shall  inquire  whether  the  denials 
of  the  resurrection  are  not  contradicted  by  certain  indubit¬ 
able  facts  and  circumstances. 


I. - ANTI-HIRACULOUS  THEORIES, 


Not  a  few  among  those  who  deny  the  bodily  resurrection  of 
Christ  seek  to  diminish  the  importance  of  the  question  by  re¬ 
presenting  it  as  non-essential  to  our  faith,  and  “  the  corporeal 
element  ”  as  of  no  special  significance.  What  matter,  they 
say,  whether  His  body  again  issued  from  the  grave,  if  only 
the  Spirit  of  Christ  continue  to  work  in  those  who  are  His  ? 
“The  risen  One  is  the  exalted  and  glorified  Christ  the  Lord 


448 


LECT.  VII.  j 


ANTI-MIEACULOUS  THEORIES. 


449 


who  is  the  Spirit ;  He  who  lives  in  His  Church.”  ^  Thus  we 
find  many  surreptitiously  changing  the  resurrection  of  Christ’s 
body  into  something  quite  different,  whilst  outwardly  keeping 
lip  a  show  of  adherence  to  the  letter  of  this  Article,  by 
preaching  and  speaking  of  a  “  spiritual  resurrection  and  glori¬ 
fication.”  This  miserably  confuses  the  whole  issue.  Who¬ 
ever  denies  a  bodily  resurrection  should  be  honest  enough  no 
longer  to  speak  of  resurrection  at  all.'^  Resurrection  does  not 
refer  to  the  spirit,  the  continued  existence  of  which  Scripture 
takes  as  a  matter  of  course,  hut  only  to  the  body,  and  its  issuing 
forth  alive  from  the  grave.  Only  that  can  rise  again  which 
has  before  been  laid  down  in  the  grave,  and  that  is  only 
the  body,  not  the  spirit.  Let  us  then  have  done  with  these 
ambiguities. 

But  according  to  Scripture,  the  body  of  Christ  was  a  sin¬ 
less  body,  broken  only  for  the  sins  of  the  world.  Hence  His 
death  was  freely  undertaken  (John  x.  18)  by  One  who,  as  the 
Son  of  God,  possessed  life  in  Himself,  and  had  received  from 
His  Father  power  to  lay  down  His  life  and  to  take  it  again 
(John  V.  26,  ii.  19,  x.  17  ft.).  The  question  therefore  is, 
whether  by  the  raising  up  of  this  His  body,  Christ  really  was 
‘‘  declared  to  he  the  Son  of  God  ”  (Bom.  i.  4),  and  His  most 
important-  self-testimonies  confirmed  or  not ;  whether  He  was 
indeed  “  crowned  with  glory  and  honour  ”  (Heb.  ii.  9),  or 
whether,  forsaken  of  God,  He  merely  died  on  the  cross  ?  We 
must  decide  whether  His  death  was  accepted  by  God  as  an 
atoning  death  for  us  or  not ;  or,  in  other  words,  whether  the 
u'orh  of  redemption  ivas  indeed  accomplished.  On  the  resurrec¬ 
tion  of  Christ  depends  our  hope  that  this  work  will  be  fully 
accomplished  in  each  of  Jis,  first  inwardly,  but  at  length  out¬ 
wardly  too,  when  the  last  enemy  is  destroyed  in  the  general 
resurrection  (Bom.  vi.  8  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  2).  This  shows  the 
importance  of  the  question  under  consideration.  A  birth 
divine  and  human ;  a  perfectly  sinless  obedience ;  a  wmrld- 
redeeming  death  and  passion ;  a  resurrection  by  which  death 
was  overcome  ;  followed  by  exaltation  at  the  right  hand  of 

‘  Schenkcl,  Charalclerblld  Jesv,  p.  233. 

“  Tliu.s,  Vogelin  confesses,  “It  would  be  more  correct,  instead  of  always 
speaking  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  to  mention  only  His  continued  existence 
amongst  us  ”  {Die  GeschicJde  Jesu,  p.  111). 


450 


TTIE  KESUllEECTION  OF  CUEIST. 


[lect.  vie 


the  Father  and  the  mission  of  the  Spirit, — all  these  things 
are  firmly  connected  parts  of  one  and  tlie  same  work  of  re¬ 
demption.  Take  bnt  one  link  out  of  this  chain,  and  the 
wliole  falls  to  pieces.  The  resurrection  is  the  beginning  of 
Christ’s  exaltation,  and  therefore  the  most  important  and  in¬ 
dispensable  link  which  connects  His  temporal  work  on  earth 
with  His  eternal  work  in  heaven.  It  is  necessary,  no  less  for 
the  perfection  of  the  person  than  for  the  completion  of  the 
Avork  of  the  God-man  ;  it  is  no  less  the  source  of  our  living 
faith  than  the  firm  foundation  for  our  hope  of  coming  glory 
and  perfection. 

It  is  only  if  we  take  our  stand  on  this  fundamental  view 
that  we  can  understand  the  apostle  when  he  says :  “  If  Christ 
be  not  risen,  then  is  our  preaching  vain,  and  your  faith  is  also 
vain ;  ...  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins  :  then  they  also  which  are 
fallen  asleep  in  Christ  are  perished”  (1  Cor.  xv.  14-18).  If 
any  one  attaches  Aveight  to  this  testimony  of  St.  Paul,  he 
ought  not  to  deny  that  the  resurrection  of  Christ  must  remain 
the  Shibboleth  of  our  Christian  faith,  as  it  Avas  from  the 
beginning  the  centre  of  the  apostolic  preaching  (Acts  i.  22, 
ii.  31  ff.).  Hoav  can  Schenkel,  in  contradiction  to  such  a 
testimony,  maintain  that  “  the  Apostle  Paul  himself  pronounced 
a  faith  which  rests  only  on  the  oidicavd  fact  of  a  loclily  re¬ 
surrection  of  Christ  to  be  entirely  Avorthless  ”  ?  ^  What  does 
St.  Paul — in  our  case  as  in  that  of  our  Lord — mean  Avhen  he 
speaks  of  resurrection,  if  not  a  bodily  rising  again  ?  In  the 
passage  cited  (vers.  33—54)  he  constantly  mentions  the  resur¬ 
rect]  on-5oir?y  ;  “  How  are  the  dead  raised  up  ?  and  Avith  AAdiat 
body  do  they  come  ?  .  .  .  This  corruptible  must  put  on  in¬ 
corruption,  and  this  mortal  must  put  on  immortality.”  Against 
Avhom  is  St.  Paul  Avriting  in  this  entire  chapter,  if  not  against 
the  doubters  of  a  bodily  resurrection  ?  And  Ave  are  told  that 
he  pronounced  the  faith  in  this  outAvard  fact  to  be  entirely 
Avorthless  :  he  Avho  makes  the  truth  of  his  preaching,  the 

*  Chavahterhlld  Jesu,  p.  223.  To  support  this,  Schenkel  appeals  to  2  Cor. 
T.  16,  “  Though  we  have  known  Christ  after  the  flesh,  3'et  now  henceforth  know 
we  Him  no  more  hut  this  passage  does  not  in  the  least  eonfirm  his  view.  For 
St.  Paul  onlj"  means  that  he  no  longer  lays  any  value  upon  having  known  Christ 
“after  the  llesh,”  i.e.  outwardly  as  a  natural  man,  since  he  has  now  become 
acciuainted  with  Him  as  the  risen  and  glorified  One.  The  meaning  or  import¬ 
ance  of  the  resurrection-body  is  not  touched  upon  at  all. 


LECT.  YII.]  ANTI-MIE.ICULOUS  THE  TJES.  451 

certainty  of  our  faith,  our  redemption  from  sin,  and  our  Lope 
of  life,  dependent  on  this  fact !  It  is  impossible  to  speak  more 
distinctly  than  St.  Paul  does  here.  But  nothing  is  clear  to 
those  who  are  determined  to  doubt  and  cavil.  Moreover, 
unbelief  has  an  interest,  for  reasons  which  are  easy  to  dis¬ 
cover,  in  not  acknowledging  any  one  article  of  our  faith  as  of 
fundamental  importance  for  the  whole.  For  then  it  is  all  the 
easier  to  shake  and  undermine  one  after  another.  Hence  the 
numerous  attempts  to  diminish  the  importance  of  the  resurrec¬ 
tion,  or  to  transfer  it  from  the  corporeal  into  the  spiritual 
region,  and  by  these  means  to  make  this  article  of  faith  some¬ 
what  more  palatable  to  the  miracle-fearing  minds  of  our  age. 

This  tendency  to  ignore  the  importance  of  the  body  pro¬ 
ceeds  from  a  general  lack  of  insight  into  the  scriptural 
philosophy  of  nature  and  of  spirit.  Those  who  do  so  are 
entirely  loanting  in  any  profound  apprehension  of  the  process  of 
salvation,  by  which,  according  to  Scripture,  God  is  carrying 
on  the  world  towards  its  consummation.  This  process  must 
extend  to  the  corporeal  world  as  well  as  to  the  spiritual.  For 
the  victory  of  divine  love  over  all  the  powers  of  sin  and  death 
would  not  he  complete  if  the  body  of  man  were  not  once  toi  be 
released  from  the  bonds  of  death,  and  raised  into  that  glorious 
condition  for  which  God  has  originally  destined  it.  Like  all 
other  terrestrial  bodies,  it  is  intended  one  day  to  be  entirely 
penetrated  by  the  spirit,  to  be  translated  into  the  glorious 
liberty  of  the  children  of  God,  and  thus  to  be  transformed  in 
light  inwardly  and  outwardly  (Rom.  viii.  21-23  ;  Phil.  hi.  21  ; 
2  Cor.  iv.  10,  etc).  And  how  otherwise  could  this  world- 
renewing  process  be  begun  than  by  the  resurrection  and  trans¬ 
formation  of  tliat  one  Body  over  which  death  had  no  power — 
the  sinless  body  of  Christ  the  second  Adam,  in  whom  all  are 
to  be  made  alive  (1  Cor.  xv.  22  et  ss.)  ?  In  His  resurrection 
“the  consummation  of  the  world  is  anticipated.”  As  in  the 
nether  world  Christ  broke  the  bonds  of  spiritual  death,  so  in 
His  resurrection  He  destroyed  the  organic  power  of  death  in 
the  earthly  creation,  and  impregnated  it  (as  an  organism — 
hence  the  dead  bodies  of  the  saints  appear  in  IMatt.  xxvii. 
52  and  53)  with  new  and  diviue  vital  forces:  just  as  in  the 
heart  the  life-blood  is  prepared  afresh,  and  from  it  flows  forth 
into  all  the  limbs.  The  resurrection  power  coming  from  Christ, 


452 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST. 


[lECT.  VII, 


tlirougli  the  medium  of  His  word  and  sacraments,  tends  mainly 
to  the  sanctification,  and  renewing  ol  the  sinner  (Horn.  v.  10; 
Eph.  ii.  5,  6  ;  1  Pet.  i.  3)  ;  and  thus  interpenetrates,  first,  the 
spiritual  nature  of  man,  planting  within  those  who  are  regene¬ 
rate  a  germ  for  the  resurrection  of  the  body  (Piom,  viii.  11). 
Then  the  spiritual  life  of  Christ  breaks  forth  into  a  manifesta¬ 
tion  in  the  visible  Avorld,  by  revivifying  the  bodies  of  those 
who  are  sanctified  (in  the  first  resurrection,  1  Cor.  xv.  23  ; 
John  V.  25-29;  Eev.  xx.  5,  6).  In  the  succeeding  general 
resurrection— an  act  of  Christ’s  power  wdnch  extends  to  the 
icliole  of  the  corporeal  world,  and  introduces  the  great  mundane 
catastrophe  (Eev.  xx.  11-13) — as  well  as  in  the  formation 
of  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth,  this  grand  and  gradually 
progressive  process  of  the  world’s  renewal  has  its  fitting  con¬ 
summation.  It  is  God’s  will  that  His  glory  should  dwell  in 
His  whole  creation,  that  Pie  may  be  all  in  all  (I  Cor.  xv.  28; 
Eev.  xxi.  3  et  ss.).  In  this  respect  we  must  indorse  the  senti¬ 
ment  of  Oetinger,  that  “  corporeity  is  the  end  of  God’s  ways.” 

This  profound  connection  between  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
and  the  renewal  of  the  whole  world,  is  overlooked  by  our 
opponents  in  a  spirit  that  is  as  unbiblical  as  it  is  unphilo- 
sophical.  They  have  no  comprehension  for  that  great  promise, 
“  Behold,  I  make  all  things  nav  ”  (Eev.  xxi.  5),  nor  yet  for  the 
holy  necessity  of  its  fulfilment. 

V  All  the  more  are  we  ready  to  acknowledge  the  just  percep¬ 
tion  of  Strauss  (who  in  this  respect  sees  further  than  Keim  ^) 

‘  Dev  geschiclUUche  Uhristus,  tliird  edition,  p.  104.  We  say  this  at  the  risk 
0*  Keim’s  classing  us  amongst  “the  zealots  of  the  letter,”  as  he  has  done  with 
GLidei  (p.  135)  on  account  of  his  instructive  hook.  The  Actuality  of  Christ’s 
'Resurrection  and  its  Oj)ponents.  Keim  is  of  opinion  that  “we  cannot — as 
Schleiermacher  long  since  proved — bind  down  the  Christian  faith  to  an  isolated 
historical  account,  related  with  so  many  contradictions,  and  of  so  difficult  and 
variable  interpretation.”  Against  this  w'e  would  remark,  that  we  do  not  consider 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  to  be  a  mere  “account,”  but  also  the  intrinsically 
necessary  conclusion  of  all  that  had  gone  before,  and  the  starting-point  of  all 
that  followed  in  the  work  of  redemption.  Nor  is  this  “an  isolated  account 
related  with  many  contradictions,”  but  rather  one  which  is  vouched  for  by  many 
witnesses,  and  in  the  main  unanimously  testified  ;  an  account  which,  like  every 
miracle,  is  historically  difficult  to  explain,  but  by  no  means,  according  to  the 
plain  meaning  of  the  words,  “  of  variable  interpretation.”  The  appeal  to 
Schleiermacher,  who,  in  respect  of  the  resuiTcction,  unaccountably  maintained 
that  most  unfortunate  theory  of  apparent  death  {vide  below),  is  by  no  means 
happy.  In  this  case  Schleiermacher  only  showed  “that  one  cannot  remain  on 
iiis  standpoint.” 


LECT.  VII.J 


ANTI-MIRACDLOUS  TIIEOrJES. 


453 


in  assigning  to  the  resurrection  its  full  importance  ;  calling 
it  as  he  does,  “  the  centre  of  the  centre,  the  real  heart  of 
Christianity  as  it  has  been  until  now,”  and  saying  that,  “  as 
regards  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  it  can  scarcely  be  doubted 
that  with  it  the  truth  of  Christianity  stands  or  falls.  Does 
not  the  Apostle  Paul  say,  ‘  If  Christ  be  not  risen,  then  is 
our  preaching  vain,’  etc.?  (1  Cor.  xv.  14-17.)  This  apostolic 
saying  cannot  be  explained  away.”^  Indeed,  Strauss  acknow¬ 
ledges  that  this  question  is  the  real  U&t  of  his  standpoint : 
“  We  here  stand  on  the  decisive  spot  where,  in  face  of  the 
records  which  tell  of  the  miraculous  resurrection  of  Christ, 
we  must  either  confess  the  insufficiency  of  all  natural  historical 
explanations  of  the  life  of  Christ,  i.e.  give  up  our  entire  under¬ 
taking  ;  or  M^e  must  pledge  ourselves  to  explain  the  purport  of 
those  records,  viz.  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  with¬ 
out  having  recourse  to  a  corresponding  miraculous  fact.”  ^ 
hlost  true.  This  is  the  point  at  which  it  must  be  decided, 
more  palpably  than  anywhere  else,  who  is  in  the  right,  Strauss 
or  the  Church,  the  anti-miraculists  or  the  miracle-believers. 

Strauss  has  shown  greater  keenness  of  perception  in  this 
matter  even  than  Baur,  who,  strange  to  say,  seems  to  think 
that  he  can  evade  this  fundamental  question.  He  expresses 
himself  in  a  strangely  ambiguous  manner.  “  What  the 
resurrection  se  is,  it  does  not  lie  within  the  hounds  of 
historical  research  to  d.etermine.”  ^  Our  research  has  only  to 
bear  in  mind  that,  fo7'  the  helicf  of  the  disciples,  the  resurrection 
of  Christ  was  incontestably  certain.  “  No  analysis  can  pene¬ 
trate  into  the  inward  spiritual  process  in  the  disciples’  con¬ 
sciousness  by  which  their  unbelief  at  the  death  of  Christ 
afterwards  changed  into  a  belief  in  His  resurrection.  .  .  .  For 
the  disciples  the  resurrection  was  as  real  as  any  historical  fact 
— whatever  may  have  been  the  medium  of  this  persuasion.” 
In  this  way  Baur  quickly  passes  by  the  chief  question,  how 
this  new  belief  can  have  originated  in  the  disciples.  The 
resurrection  is  supposed  to  be  the  declaration  of  a  firm  belief, 
that  the  person  of  Christ  had  not  only  not  perished,  but  by 
death  was  raised  to  its  absolute  importance — expressed  in  the 
form  of  an  external  event, 

*  Die  Halhen  und  die  Qanzen,  pp.  125-127.  *  Leien  Jesu,  p.  288. 

*  Das  Christenihum  der  ersten  drei  Jahrhunderte,  p.  39. 


454 


THE  EE3UREECTI0N  OF  CUEIST. 


[lect.  til 


Thus  see  that  Baur  rests  the  whole  development  of 
the  Cliristian  Church,  not  on  the  objective  fact  of  Christ’s 
resurrection,  hut  on  the  subjective  belief  of  His  disciples  in 
it ;  not  on  Christ  Himself,  but  on  His  disciples  ;  not  on  a 
divine  act,  but  on  a  certain  inexplicable  condition  oj  human 
consciousness.  Instead  of  the  fact,  we  have  a  fiction,  i.e.  the 
mere  conception  of  a  fact,  which  may  or  may  not  have  a 
real  objective  foundation.  Well  might  Strauss  blame  this 
ambiguity.  “  Baur,”  says  he,  “  at  least  verbally,  evaded  the 
burning  question.  For  his  words  sound  as  if  it  were  impossible 
to  ascertain  historically,  nor  were  even  a  matter  of  historical 
research,  whether  the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  an  outward 
(natural  or  miraculous)  event,  or  whether  it  only  took  place 
in  the  belief  of  the  disciples.  But  assuredly  Baur  liad  settled 
in  his  own  mind  that  it  was  by  no  means  the  former,  i.e.  an 
outward  occurrence  of  any  sort,  and  therefore  he  must  neces¬ 
sarily  conclude  that  it  was  the  latter,  i.e.  a  mere  idea  ”  {ubi 
siq).  p.  228).  And,  indeed,  we  are  strangely  impressed,  but 
not  at  all  convinced,  by  the.way  in  which  this  historian, — who 
examines  every  portion  of  Church  history  with  such  exactitude, 
and  asks  not  merely  what  was  believed  to  have  occurred,  but 
what  really  happened, — instead  of  examining  into  the  reality 
of  this  fact  to  which  all  the  apostles  appeal,  and  on  which  the 
Christian  Church  is  founded,  simply  contents  himself  with 
knowing  that  it  was  believed  in  !  This  can  only  be  done  by 
an  idealistic  philosopher,  to  whom  history  in  general  is  nothing 
but  a  process  of  consciousness. 

Before  this  Baur  had  remarked  :  “  Between  the  death  of 
Christ  and  his  resurrection  there  lies  so  thick  and  impenetrable 
a  darkness,  that  after  the  connection  has  been  so  violently  torn 
and  so  wonderfully  restored,  we  seem  to  be  placed  on  a  new 
theatre  of  history.”  This  is  perfectly  true  :  the  resurrection 
of  Christ  turned  over  a  new  leaf  in  the  history  of  the  world, 
and  prepared  a  new  soil  for  its  development.  But  does  “  a 
new  theatre  ot  history  ”  originate  from  a  mere ’idea  ?  Would 
not  the  formation  of  this  divine  idea,  this  belief,  “  from  which 
depends  the  entire  weight  of  a  movement  so  world-wide  as  that 
of  Christianity,  without  the  corresponding  fact,  be  a  miracle 
as  great  and  far  greater  ”  than  the  resurrection  itself  ?  Of 
such  a  theory  assuredly  we  may  say  :  “  In  any  case  it  does 


I 


LECT.  VIL] 


ANTI-MIEACULOUS  TIIEOEIES. 


455 


not  help  us  to  attain  to  a  historical  and  philosophical  com¬ 
prehension  of  Christianity.”  ^  According  to  Scripture,  the 
apostles  founded  the  Church  on  a  fact.  Here  we  have  a 
foundation-stone.  Baur  I'ounds  it  on  a  breach  in  the  historical 
connection  which  is  enveloped  in  enigmatic  darkness,  is.  upon 
a  gap.  No  wonder,  then,  that  his  historical  construction  of 
the  building  is  hollow. 

IMany  others,  however,  have  in  the  most  various  ways 
endeavoured  positively  to  show  how  this  belief  could  arise  in 
the  disciples  in  a  natural  manner.  On  the  one  hand,  the 
reality  of  Christ’s  death  was  denied,  and  reduced  to  a  mere 
trance,  so  that  the  resurrection  would  be  the  perfectly  natural 
recovery  from  a  deep  sivoon.  On  the  other  hand,  the  reality  of 
our  Saviour's  death  was  confessed,  hut  the  resurrection  as  an 
outward  fact  denied,  and  the  origin  of  the  belief  in  it  attributed 
to  visions  experienced  by  the  disciples. 

Tlie  former  of  these  hypotheses,  that  of  apparent  death,  was 
employed  by  the  old  Bationalists,  and  more  recently  by 
Schleiermacher  in  his  Life  of  Christ.  We  might  remind  the 
upholders  of  this  theory,  of  the  blood  and  water  which  flowed 
from  our  Saviour’s  opened  side.  However,  we  will  let  the 
physiologists  dispute  whether  this  symptom  is  a  sure  test  of 
deatli  or  not.  This  theory  is  contradicted  in  the  first  place  by 
the  unanimous  voice  of  Scripture  in  cdl  its  parts,  which  in  a 
hundred  passages  represents  the  death  of  Christ  as  reed.  We  see 
this  throughout  the  Old  Testament,  from  the  promised  coming 
of  the  Serpent’s  Destroyer,  whose  heel  shall  be  bruised  (Gen. 
hi.  15),  down  to  such  prophecies  as  these  :  “Thou  hast  brought 
me  into  the  dust  of  death  ”  (Ps.  xxii.  15) ;  “  He  was  cut  off  out 
of  the  land  of  the  living  ”  (Isa.  liii.  8) ;  “  They  shall  look 
upon  me  whom  thay  have  pierced  ”  (Zech.  xii.  12,1 0).  And 
far  more  clearly  even  do  vve  see  it  throughout  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment, — in  our  Lord’s  numerous  predictions  of  His  own  redeem¬ 
ing  death  (Matt.  xvi.  21,  xx.  28,  etc.), — in  the  exact  descrip¬ 
tions  of  His  death  by  all  four  evangelists,  according  to  whom 
He  really  died,  or  breathed  out  His  spirit  (i^eTTvevae),  and 
commended  it  into  the  hands  of  His  Father  (Matt,  xxvii.  50  ; 
Mark  xv.  37 ;  Luke  xxiii.  46  ;  John  xix.  30,  33), — in  the 
apostolic  testimonies  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  both  in  the 
*  Landerer,  IForte  der  Erinnerunj  an  F.  C.  v.  Baur,  p.  71. 


456 


THE  RESURKECTIOX  OF  CHRIST. 


[lECT.  VII. 


Acts  (ii.  24-32,  x.  39,  xiii.  28-30,  34  et  ss.,  etc.)  and  in 
the  Epistles  (Eom.  v.  6-10  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  3  ;  1  Pet.  iii.  18, 
etc.), — in  the  Eevelation  ot  St.  John,  where  “  the  Eirst-begotten 
of  the  dead  ”  testifies  ot  Himself,  “  1  ..  .  loas  dead,  and 
behold  I  am  alive  for  evermore,  and  have  the  keys  of  hell  and 
of  death”  (i.  5,18,  ii.  8),  Again,  this  theory  is  contradicted 
by  the  divine  and  human  necessity  of  Christ’s  death  as  the 
ground  of  our  reconciliation  with  God.  How  could  this  death, 
foreshadowed  by  all  the  sacrifices  of  the  Old .  Testament,  be 
imagined  as  a  sacrificial  death,  if  Christ  did  not  actually  cx'pirc  ? 
And  once  more,  this  theory  is  contradicted  by  the  parallel, 
though  contradistinctive,  relation  in  which  the  death  of  Christ 
is  placed  to  His  resurrection  ;  as  also  by  the  way  in  which 
our  translation  from  the  condition  of  death  into  new  life  is 
connected  with  the  resurrection  of  Christ  as  its  pattern  and 
principle  (Eom.  iv.  24,  25,  vi.  3  et  ss.,  viii.  10  et  ss.,  xiv.  9  ; 
1  Cor.  XV.  3  et  ss. ;  2  Cor.  v.  14  et  ss.,  etc.). 

But  apart  from  all  these  considerations,  there  is  one  simple 
question  which  entirely  upsets  this  contrivance  of  the  rational¬ 
ists.  How  coidd  the  'pitiahle  ayiMarance  of  one  ivho  ^cas  just 
recovering  from  deadly  wounds  give  rise  to  such  a  sudden  and 
enthusiastic  helief  in  the  resurrection  of  deedh's  congucror  ? 
Strauss  has  dealt  a  deadly  blow  to  Eationalism  by  pointing 
this  out  in  his  trenchant  way.^  “  One  who  liad  thus  crept 
forth  hali  dead  from  the  grave,  and  crawled  about  a  sickly 
patient,  who  had  need  of  medical  and  surgical  assistance,  of 
nursing  and  strengthening,  but  who  notwithstanding  finally 
succumbed  to  his  sufferings,  could  never  have  given  the 
disciples  the  impression  that  he  was  the  conqueror  over  the 
grave  and  death,  and  the  prince  of  life.  Such  a  recovery  could 
only  have  weakened,  or  at  best  given  a  pathetic  tinge  to  the 
impression  which  he  had  made  upon  them  by  his  life  and 
death  ;  but  it  cannot  possibly  have  changed  their  sorrow  into 
ecstasy,  and  raised  their  reverence  into  worship.”  Schleier- 
ma''*her  defends  his  strange  view  by  the  argument  that  real 
death  had  never  been  known  to  take  place  without  decomposi¬ 
tion  supervening ;  as  if  the  shedding  of  Christ’s  blood  and 
His  death  w'ere  not  adequate  for  our  redemption  without 
ensuing  corruption,  the  absence  of  which  is  sufficiently 

*  Lebm  Je$u,  p.  298. 


LECT.  VII.] 


ANTI-MIRACULOUS  THEORIES. 


457 


accounted  for  by  the  epithet  “Thy  Holy  One  ”  in  Ps.  xvi.  10 
and  Acts  ii.  31.  Schleiermacher’s  supposition,  that  Jesus 
afterwards  lived  for  a  time  -with  the  disciples,  and  then  retired 
into  entire  solitude  for  his  second  death,  will  scarcely  obtain 
fresh  acceptation  for  this  exploded  hypothesis ;  for  even  then 
the  apparent  death  would  be  followed  by  the  infinite  dis¬ 
enchantment  of  real  decease.^  Hence  the  modern  opponents  of 
the  resurrection  have  not  ventured  to  recur  to  this  hypothesis, 
according  to  wdiich  God  ivoidd  have  Joundcd  His  Jdngdom  on  a 
misunderstanding^ — and  the  words  of  our  old  creed  are  still 
valid,  “  Avho  was  crucified,  dead,  and  buried.” 

At  present,  the  second  of  the  theories  which  we  have 
mentioned  is  in  vogue  among  our  opponents  ;  i.e.  they  suppose 
the  belief  in  the  resurrection  to  have  arisen  from  visions. 
This  is  the  distinctl}^  expressed  theory  of  Strauss  and  Penan ; 
while  with  Scheukel,  who  as  usual  stops  half  way,  it  is  difficult 
to  say  what  theory  he  really  adopts.  It  wmuld  be  scarce 
worth  w'hile  to  follow  out  the  various  modifications  of  his 
views,  were  it  not  that  from  him  we  learn  an  instructive 
lesson  as  to  how  the  opponents  of  the  biblical  doctrine  turn 
and  twist  and  cover  their  movements  with  a  cloud  of  phrases, 
in  order,  on  the  one  hand,  to  remove  the  miractilous,  and  on 
the  other,  to  escjipe  the  reproach  of  radical  unbelief. 

Schenkel  rejects  the  miraculous  Revivification  of  our  Lord’s 
earthly  body  ;  he  rejects  the  supposition  of  apparent  death  ;  ay, 
he  even  rejects  the  “  visionary  hypothesis.”  In  chap.  xxix.  of 
his  Sketch  of  Christ's  Character  (under  the  ambiguous  heading, 
“  The  Glorification  ”)  he  considers  three  facts  to  be  indubitable  : 
first,  “  that  in  the  early  morning  of  the  first  day  of  the  week 
wffiich  followed  the  crucifixion,  the  grave  of  Jesus  was  found 
empty  ;  ”  second,  “  that  the  apostles  and  other  members  of  the 
apostolic  community  were  convinced  that  they  had  seen  Jesus 
since  his  crucifixion  ;  ”  and  last,  “  that  the  appearances  of  Christ 
which  tlie  Gospels  relate  as  taking  place  after  his  death  were 
essentially  of  the  same  character  as  that  which  the  Apostle 
Paul  experienced  on  his  way  to  Damascus”  (p.  231).  And 
St.  Paul  himself,  in  Gal.  i.  16,  designates  “his  vision  mainly 

'  Vide  Sclileiemacher,  Lehen  Jesu,  p^.  443  et  ss.,  and  500  et  ss.  Against 
this  theoiy,  cf.  Keini,  uhi  srqj.  pp.  132  et  ss. 

2  Cf.  also  Kahilis,  Die  Aii/erstehung  Jesu  als  geschicldliche  Thatsache. 


458 


THE  EESURHECTION  OF  CHRIST. 


[lECT.  VII. 


as  an  inward  revelation  of  Christ.”  “  The  risen- One  is,  there¬ 
fore,  the  glorified  and  transfigured  Christ,  the  Lord  wdio  is  the 
Spirit”  (p.  282). 

The  two  first  of  these  facts  are  universally  acknowledged. 
But  the  third  is  no  “  fact ;  ”  it  is  merely  a  conjecture,  winch 
leaves  it  an  entirely  open  question  whether  that  appearance 
of  Christ  near  Damascus  was  merely  an  inward  revelation 
or  an  outward  and  objective  one  as  well,  and  whetlier  Gal.  i. 
1 6  is  a  sufficient  proof  for  the  former  of  these  suppositions ; 
indeed,  whether  this  occurrence  really  does  at  all  belong  to 
the  same  category  as  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Christ  in  the 
Gospels.  This  question  will  come  before  us  presently ;  mean¬ 
while  “  a  mainly  inward  revelation  ”  is  of  no  use,  as  we  must 
postulate  either  an  external  or  an  internal  event. 

If,  however,  he  denies  the  bodily  resurrection  of  Christ,  and 
pronounces  that  wdiich  the  Bible  maintains  to  be  of  supreme 
importance  to  be  utterly  worthless,  how  does  Schenkel  explain 
the  belief  in  the  resurrection  ?  He  says  that  the"  ChurcTTat 
Jerusalem  regarded  the  fact,  that  the  grave  of  Jesus  wvas  found 
empty,  as  a  miracle  of  divine  omnipotence,  and  supposed  that 
“  it  had  taken  place  by  the  help  of  angels.  Hence  the  first 
tradition  of  an  angelic  appearance,  which  was  supported  by 
the  utterances  of  deeply-excited  women”  (p.  231).  The  feel¬ 
ings  of  love,  of  hope,  and  of  trust  were  again  awakened. 
“  Here,  too,  rvomen  led  the  way.  They  believed  that  in  the 
place  where  Christ’s  body  had  lain  they  had  seen  celestial 
beings.  This  was  followed  by  ecstatic  conditions,  the  conse¬ 
quence  of  deeply  shaken  feminine  soul-life  ”  (p.  2  2  6).  It 
seems  strange  after  this  that  Schenkel  should  reject  Eenan’s 
supposition  of  morbid  hallucinations.  But  what  really  hap¬ 
pened  ?  Did  Christ  in  any  w^ay  again  approach  His  people  ? 
We  are  merely  told  tliat  “his  appearances  were  so  many 
manifestations  of  his  likeness,  which  till  then  had  been  so 
much  obscured  in  the  hearts  of  those  who  believed  in  him. 
He  proved  himself  in  them  to  be  the  ever-living  One  ” 
(p.  233). 

Apparently  Schenkel  feels  that  indefinite  phrases  such  as 
these  are  mere  evasions,  and  not  explanations  of  the  matter  in 
question.  Lor  in  another  place  ^  he  endeavours  to  give  us 
’  Allfjeintine  Kirchliche  Zeitschri/t,  1865,  No.  5,  pp.  289  -384. 


LECT.  VII.] 


ANTI-MIRACULOUS  THEORIES. 


459 


more  precise  information.  Here  he  tells  ns  that  the  appear¬ 
ances  of  the  risen  Christ  were  “  real  manifestations  of  his 
personality,  which  had  issued  forth  from  death  living  and 
glorified.”  This  sounds  almost  orthodox,  only  that  the  more 
indefinite  expression  “  personality”  is  substituted  for  “  body.” 
For,  lie  continues,  the  corpse  remained  in  the  grave,  or  was 
removed  from  it  in  a  manner  which  we  cannot  now  determine  ; 
only  the  spirit  issued  forth  alive  (just  as  if  the  spirit  had  ever 
been  laid  in  the  grave  !)  and  surrounded  itself  with  some  fresh 
body,  “  because  the  life  of  the  human  personality  absolutely 
needs  some  (outward)  organ  for  its  manifestation.”  Was  it, 
then,  a  kind  of  spiritual  apparition  through  the  medium  of  this 
new  “  organ,”  and  in  any  case  without  the  old  body  ?  No,  it 
was  not  this,  but  a  “  real  though  mysterious  self-revelation  of 
Christ’s  personality  which  had  come  forth  from  death  living  and 
imperishable,”  and  which  was  of  such  a  nature  “  that  the  dis¬ 
ciples  received  the  impression  of  having  actually  seen  Jesus.” 
Instead  of  an  explanation,  a  fresh  enigma  is  here  presented  to 
us.  Who  can  extract  any  clear  idea  from  tliis  cloud  of  words, 
which  seems  to  affirm  everything,  and  yet  is  intended  to  deny 
everything  ?  If  the  body  of  Christ  remained  dead,  then  it  is 
a  glaring  abuse  of  biblical  language,  ay,  verbal  “  forgery  ” 
(Strauss),  still  to  speak  of  Him  as  “  risen  from  the  dead.” 

Here  we  are  met  by  Schenkel  with  a  strange  objection  : 
“  If  Christ  had  returned  among  men  after  his  crucifixion  in 
the  same  earthly  and  corporeal  form  as  before,^  why  did  he 
not  show  himself  to  his  Jewish  judges  and  to  the  Eoman 
procurator?  Why  did  he  not  appear  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem 
before  the  people  who  had  been  so  basely  deceived  as  to  his 
person  ?  Why  did  he  not  by  his  mere  appearance  inspire 
courage  in  his  frightened  followers  everywhere,  and  utterly 
defeat  his  malignant  enemies  ?”^  Why?  Because  God’s  ways 
are  far  more  wise  and  holy  than  our  short-sightedness  would 
expect.  Why  did  our  Lord  always  refuse  to  give  a  sign  from 
heaven  ?  Why  did  He  not  at  the  very  beginning  hold  an 
audible  conversation  with  His  Father  up  to  heaven,  in  order 

’  Tliis  is  nowhere  maintained  in  the  Scriptures  ;  for,  according  to  them,  the 
resurrection  was  the  beginning  of  the  transformation  of  His  earthly  body,  which 
transformation  was  completed  at  His  ascension. 

*  Charakterbild  Jesu,  p.  233. 


460 


THE  RESUllRECTIOH  OF  CHRIST. 


[lECT.  VII. 


publicly  and  irrefuta  ve  His  divine  mission,  to  stop 

the  mouths  of  all  do-  adversaries,  and  make  it  easy 

for  everyone  to  believe 'in  Him?  Why  did  He  not  come 


down  from  the  cross  to  prove  His  divine  Sonship  ?  Had  it 
been  told  us  that  Christ  did,  as  Schenkel  would  have  had  Him, 
mahe  a  public  show  of  Himsdf  before  His  enemies,  then  we 
should  have  great  reason  to  doubt  the  veracity  of  the  records 
which  contained  such  a  statement.  For  this  would  be  entirely 
out  of  keeping  with  all  His  other  miracles,  as  well  as  with  His 
character  and  work.  That  Fie  did  not  do'  so,  speaks  for  the 
credibility  of  His  reappearance.  JMiracles  may  facilitate  faith, 
but  must  never  compel  it.  This  objection  of  Schenkel’s  entirely 
ignores  the  moral  character  of  true  faith,  which  must  depend 
upon  a  man’s  free  decision.  Would  Christ’s  kingdom  any 
longer  be  a  kingdom  of  faith,  if  it  were  founded  upon  the  fact 
that  the  risen  Saviour  liad  been  seen  and  touched  by  all — i.e. 
upon  a  miracle  which  had  become  a  public  gazing-stoch  ?  And 
did  Jerusalem  still  deserve  this  ?  Had  not  the  people,  when 
demanding  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus,  passed  sentence  of  death 
upon  themselves  ?  After  Christ’s  entry  into  Jerusalem,  the 
respite  of  grace  for  Israel  had  hurried  to  its  close.  Wifh  Flis 
crucifixion,  Israel,  as  a  nation,  was  condemned  to  death.  Only 
individuals  could  still  be  saved.  And  Schenkel  would  demand 
a  further  respite  for  the  most  hardened  enemies  of  Christ ; 
naj^,  even  a  compulsion  to  believe  !  Ho  ;  henceforth  the  risen 
Saviour  could  only  appear,  “  not  to  all  the  people,  but  unto 
witnesses  chosen  before  of  God”  (Acts  x.  41),  as  a  reward  for 
their  measure  of  faith  in  still  following  Him  even  when  shame¬ 
fully  put  to  death.  Henceforth  it  was  ordained  by  “  the  fool¬ 
ishness  of  God,”  which  is  “  wiser  than  men,”  that  “  by  the 
foolishness  of  preaching  they  that  believe  ”  should  be  saved ; 
and  now  Israel  and  the  whole  world,  with  all  their  wise  men 
and  scribes,  had  to  learn  from  the  poor  fishermen  to  whom 
the  manifestations  of  this  wondrous  divine  victory  over  death 
had  been  vouchsafed. 

But  though  Schenkel  may  not  be  a  strict  upholder  of  the 
"  visionary  theory,”  Eenan  openly  professes  his  adherence  to 
it.  We  have  already  seen  that  he  regards  Mary  JMagdalene 
as  the  creative  authoress  of  the  resurrection  belief.  For  an 
explanation  of  “  the  strange  rumours  which  spread  amongst 


LECT.  VIL] 


ANTI-MIRACULOUS  THEORIES. 


461 


the  disciples  in  consequence  of  being  found  empty,” 

we  are  referred  to  his  work  on  This  has  since 

then  appeared,  and  in  the  first  chapterwc  are  toTd  as  follows ; — 

“  Though  Jesus  often  spoke  of  resurrection  and  a  new  life, 
yet  he  never  distinctly  said  that  he  should  rise  again  in  this 
flesh,” — ^just  as  if  His  repeated  announcements  that  the  Son  of 
man  should  he  killed  and  rise  again  the  third  day  could  have 
been  understood  by  His  disciples  in  any  other  sense  than  that 
of  a  bodily  resurrection  from  the  grave  (cf.  ]\Iatt.  xii.  40,  xvii. 
9,  23,  XX.  19,  xxvi.  32,  Mark  viii.  31,  ix.  9,  10,  31,  x.  34, 
Luke  ix.  22,  xviii.  33).  All  the  passages  which  contradict 
Eenan’s  notion  are  disposed  of  by  the  remark,  that  “  after  a 
certain  time  had  elapsed,  much  importance  was  attached  to 
Christ’s  predicting  his  resurrection.”  This  is  the  old  critical 
artifice,  to  reject  as  spurious  that  portion  of  the  records  which 
contradicts  one’s  presuppositions.  Christ  must  be  told  what 
He  may  and  what  He  may  not  have  spoken. 

F urther  on  Eenan  cannot  help  confessing  that  “  several  of 
the  Master’s  words  might  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  his 
aqain  issuiim  from  the  "rave.”  He  then  describes  to  us  the 
state  of  mind  in  which  a  belief  in  the  resurrection  might  arise. 

Enoch  and  Elijah  had  not  tasted  death.  The  belief  began  to 
gain  ground  that  even  the  patriarchs  and  other  Old  Testament 
worthies  of  the  first  rank  had  not  really  died,  and  that  their 
bodies  were  alive  in  their  graves  at  Hebron.”  How  does 
Eenan  know  this  ?  It  is  simply  a  piece  of  his  lively  Oriental 
imagination  which  plays  such  an  important  part  in  his  Vie  cle 
Jesus.  In  Actsii.  29,  Peter  says  of  David,  “  He  is  both  dead 
and  buried,  and  his  sepulchre  is  with  us  unto  this  day ;  ”  and 
he  mentions  this  as  a  well-known  fact,  doubted  by  no  one. 
Hor  can  Eenan  adduce  a  single  authority  for  this  wild  asser¬ 
tion.  But  let  us  hear  him  further.  “The  same  thing  must 
happen  to  Jesus  as  has  happened  to  all  men  (?)  who  had 
riveted  tlie  attention  of  their  contemporaries.  The  world, 
accustomed  to  invest  them  with  superhuman  powers,  cannot 
believe  that  they  have  succumbed  to  the  hard  law  of  death. 
Heroes  do  not  die.  This  honoured  Master  had  lived  too  pro¬ 
foundly  amongst  his  followers  for  them  not  to  maintain  after 
his  death  that  he  would  always  live.  The  day  after  his  burial 
was  fall  of  such  thoughts  as  these.  The  women,  especially 


462 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST. 


[lECT.  VII. 


in  spirit,  overwhelmed  him  with  their  tenderest  caresses  (only 
hear  the  Parisian !).  Their  thoughts  cannot  for  a  moment  for¬ 
sake  this  beloved  friend :  surely  the  angels  must  be  surround¬ 
ing  him,  and  veiling  their  countenances  with  his  grave-clothes. 

.  .  .  The  little  company  of  Christians  on  that  day  accom¬ 
plished  the  true  miracle ;  they  raised  up  Jesus  in  their  hearts 
by  the  mighty  love  which  they  bore  to  him.  They  resolved 
that  Jesus  should  not  die.  The  love  of  these  passionately- 
moved  souls  was  indeed  stronger  than  death.” 

According  to  the  unanimous  testimony  of  all  the  records, 
the  reports  or  manifestations  of  Christ’s  resurrection  profoundly 
startled  both  the  women  and  the  disciples,  and  so  suddenly 
broke  in  upon  their  sorrowful  brooding,  that  at  first  they  woidd 
not  believe  them  (Mark  xvi.  11,  13  et  ss.  ;  Luke  xxiv.  2  2  et 
ss.).  According  to  Eeiian,  they  were  made  way  for  by  the 
expectations  of  the  disciples ;  nay,  even  produced  by  them 
through  a  heroic  resolution  !  ! 

Mary  Magdalene  played  a  most  important  part  in  this 
matter.  “  We  must  follow  her  step  by  step,  for  during  one 
hour  of  that  day  she  carried  within  her  all  the  workings  of  the 
Christian  consciousness.  Her  testimony  decided  the  faith  oi 
the  future.”  But  how  may  we  explain  the  appearances  ol 
Christ  amongst  the  assembled  disciples  ?  Whilst  they  are 
sitting  together,  probably  “  something  like  a  light  breath 
passes  over  the  faces  of  the  assembly.  At  such  decisive  hours 
a  breath  of  air,  a  rattling  window,  a  chance  murmur,  may 
decide  the  belief  of  nations  for  centuries.”  The  disciples  hear 
the  word  “  Peace.”  There  was  no  longer  any  doubt ;  Christ 
is  present ! 

Thus  it  is  that  Eenan  explains  the  belief  in  the  resurrec¬ 
tion.  Hallucinations  of  a  visionary  woman,  a  breath  of  air,  a 
rattling  window,  a  chance  murmur ;  these  are  his  last  resorts. 
Windy  hypotheses  in  good  sooth !  Did  ever  unbelief  give  a 
more  flagrant  proof  of  its  inability  to  afford  a  natural  explana¬ 
tion  of  divine  facts  than  this  ?  Woe  be  to  us  if  a  breath  of 
air  may  at  any  time  chain  us  and  our  posterity  for  centuries 
to  a  momentous  error  from  wdiich  there  is  no  escape,  espe¬ 
cially  if  we  happen  to  be  in  an  excited  frame  of  mind  J  How 
thoroughly  must  one  \\dio  can  thus  speak  have  given  up  all 
belief  even  in  a  moral  harmony  of  the  world,  to  say  nothing 


LECT.  VII.] 


ANTI-MIKACULOUS  THEORIES. 


4G3 


of  a  holy  providence  !  Unbelief  delivers  manhind’s  choicest 
treasures,  all  its  moral  religious  convictions,  to  the  ine:cy  of  the 
merest  chance ;  and  here  we  see  in  glaring  colours  lioiu  deeply, 
in  consequence  of  this,  it  degrcides  man,  and  hoxo  shamefully  it 
defiles  his  mox'al  dignity.  And  yet  unbelief  behaves  as  though 
it  were  going  to  help  man  to  attain  his  full  dignity. 

A  far  more  not^le  upholder  of  the  “  visionary  ”  hypothesis 
meets  us  in  the  person  of  Strauss.  He  extends  the  myth  as 
far  hack  as  Gethsemane,  thougUit  is  not  easy  to  imagine  how 
it  should  have  occurred  to  any  one  to  invent  such  a  spiritual 
struggle  ;  for  these  myths  are  surely  intended  to  exalt  Christ, 
whereas  the  scene  in  the  garden  shows  Him  in  His  deepest 
abasement.  As  is  his  wont,  Strauss  begins  the  investigation 
by  gathering  together  all  the  variations  and  contradictions  ol 
the  different  narratives,  in  order  to  deduce  therefrom  “  the 
insufficiency  of  the  evangelical  accounts.”  He  will  not  ac¬ 
knowledge  any  other  witness  as  credible  than  Fcml,  who  in 
1  Cor.  XV.  only  says  that  the  revived  Saviour  “  appeared  ”  to 
the  apostles,  i.e.  “  they  believed  that  they  visibly  perceived  him. 
But  he  does  not  tell  us  what  reasons  they  had  for  regarding 
the  appearance  as  something  real,  and  even  as  their  crucified 
Master  himself.  Indeed,  it  is  doubtful  whether  Paul  ever 
inquired  after  such  reasons  ”  (Leben  Jcsii,  p.  290).  “  We  do 

not  possess  any  deposition  of  an  eye-witness  about  these 
appearances”  (p.  291;  since  the  Gospels  are  not  apostolic). 
Only  the  appearance  of  Christ  before  Damascxis,  which  is  referred 
to  by  St.  Paul  in  1  Cor.  xv.  8  and  ix.  1,  is  related  to  us  by 
an  eye-witness,  and  that  “very  brielly”  (p.  301);  for  tho 
thrice-told  story  in  the  Acts  has  only  the  value  of  a  “  third- 
class  testimony,”  on  account  of  the  spuriousness  and  uncer¬ 
tainty  of  this  .record.  True,  from  that  testimony  of  St.  Paul 
about  himself,  short  as  it  is,  this  much  is  evident,  “that  he 
imagined  the  exalted  Christ  to  be  rccdly  and  wonderfully  pre¬ 
sent,  and  considered  the  appearance  fully  objective  ”  (p.  302). 
Hotwitlistanding,  there  is  “  nothing  to  prevent  us  from  being 
of  a  different  opinion  in  tliis  matter,  and  considering  the 
appearance  as  simply  subjective,  an  event  of  his  inward  sovl- 
Hfe.”  IMoreover,  we  may  safely  do  this,  as  “  certain  over¬ 
strained  conditions  of  the  soul  were  nothing  uncommon  Avith 
Paul,”  and  many  traits  in  him  make  us  suspect  that  he  had 


464 


THE  HESUKRECTION  OF  CUEIST. 


[LECT.  VII. 


a  nervous  constitution,”  which  probably  kept  him  subject  to 
convulsions,  or  perhaps  epileptic  fits  !  Only  Strauss  forgets 
that  the  visions  and  revelations  of  which  Paul  speaks  (2  Cor. 
xii.  1  et  ss.)  belong  only  to  his  Christian  life,  and  not  to  his 
career  as  a  Jew  and  a  Pharisee,  which  closed  with  that  first 
and  greatest  vision  of  Christ  before  Damascus. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  the  clear  and  certain  meaning  of 
that  testimony  points  to  an  actual  outward  appearance  of 
Christ.  Nevertheless,  it  was  merely  an  inward  occurrence,  and 
St.  Paul  must  have  deceived  himself,  since,  with  regard  to 
visions  in  general,  he  was  not  sober  and  dependable  enough  ; 
indeed,  we  may  almost  say,  not  a  responsible  agent.  Another, 
too,  of  Strauss’  manoeuvres  is  worthy  of  notice,  viz.  the  way 
in  which  he  changes  what  St.  Paul  evidently  considers  an 
incontestable  objective  fact  (1  Cor.  xv.  3  ff)  into  the  tradi¬ 
tion  of  a  subjective  helief  that  the  Lord  had  been  seen,  and 
that  merely  because  St.  Paul  does  not  enumerate  the  reasons 
which  induced  the  disciples  to  consider  this  appearance  as 
something  objective.  Does  Strauss  think  that  the  apostle  in 
this  short  sketch  ought  to  have  made  provision  for  the  doubts 
of  every  future  sceptic  ?  Surely  the  absence  of  all  such 
reasons  rather  tends  to  show  that  the  disciples  had  so  little 
doubt  as  to,  the  reality  of  Christ’s  appearance,  that  it  never 
occurred  to  them  to  give  further  reasons  for  their  belief  in 
what  they  had  seen  and  experienced. 

Having  by  coups  deforce  such  as  these  endeavoured  to  give 
colour  to  his  supposition  that  the  vision  of  Christ  before 
Damascus  was  merely  inward,  Strauss  proceeds  from  this  to 
draw  “  regressive  conclusions  as  to  the  origin  of  the  belief  in 
Christ’s  resurrection.”  The  appearances  of  Christ  to  tlie  elder 
disciples  were  of  intrinsically  the  same  character.  “  They,  too, 
were  merely  internal  events,  which  might  easily  appear  to  the 
persons  concerned  as  outward  and  sensuous  perceptions,  but 
by  us  must  be  comprehended  as  inward  facts  resulting  from  cm 
excitement  of  the  emotional  life,  i.e.  as  visions’’'  (p.  304).  “  The 
endeavour  of  the  disciples  after  the  death  of  Christ  must  have 
been  to  include  the  attribute  of  vicarious  suffering,  of  violent 
hilt  expiatory  death,  in  their  conception  of  the  Messiah.”  Such 
a  death  which  was  undergone  for  all,  could  only  be  the 
entrance  into  the  Messianic  glory — a  transition  to  a  new  and 


LECT.  VII.] 


ANTI-MIRACULOUS  THEORIES. 


465 


higher  life.  And  did  not  the  Old  Testament  contain  prophe¬ 
cies  of  the  Holy  One  whom  God  would  not  suflhr  to  see  cor¬ 
ruption, — of  the  Servant  of  God  who  should  be  taken  away  out 
of  the  land  of  the  living,  and  yet  see  long  life  ?  But  ”  from 
the  Jewish  standpoint,  the  soul  without  the  body  is  a  mere 
shadow”  (p.  307).  How  else,  therefore,  could  they  imagine 
the  soul  of  Christ  to  be  exalted  to  His  Father  in  heaven  other¬ 
wise  than  by  the  reviving  of  His  body  ?  Hence  their  notion 
of  His  resurrection. 

Some  of  the  narratives  about  the  appearance  of  the  risen* 
Christ  may  well  make  us  “  conjecture  that  the  excitement  of 
the  disciples  after  the  sudden  death  of  Jesus,  and  their  imagi¬ 
nation  which  was  constantly  employed  in  renewing  his  picture, 
caused  them  to  see  a  reappearance  of  their  Master  in  any 
unknown  person  who  met  them  under  enigmatical  circum¬ 
stances,  and  made  a  special  impression  upon  them  ”  (p.  308). 
How  is  it  that  other  mourners,  wdrose  imagination  is  also  much 
occupied  with  the  picture  of  their  dear  and  suddenly  departed 
ones,  do  not  often  suffer  under  a  similar  deception  ?  But  even 
Strauss  remarks  of  the  first  occasions  on  which  Christ  appeared 
to  single  individuals,  that  “  it  is  scarce  likely  that  they  were 
of  this  description.”  How  w^ere  they  ?  “  The  expression  of 

Mark,  that  he  appeared  first  to  Mary  Magdalene,  from  whom 
he  had  cast  out  seven  devils,  gives  much  food  for  thought. 
'With  a  woman  thus  constituted  in  mind  and  body,  there  was 
no  great  step  between  inward  excitement  and  a  vision.”  The 
case  of  Paul  and  the  (legendary)  vision  of  Peter  (Acts  x.),  show 
us  that  mental  conditions  of  this  kind  were  not  rare  even  in 
the  case  of  men  of  that  period,  and  of  simple  culture.  AYe 
may  therefore  well  “  suppose  that  during  the  days  which 
followed  the  death  of  Jesus,  there  was  among  his  followers  a 
general  frame  of  mind,  an  intensification  of  the  emotional  and 
nervous  life,  which  would  compensate  for  any  want  of  disposi¬ 
tion  on  the  part  of  an  individual”  (p.  309).  But  how  can 
w^e  conceive  that  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  should  have 
arisen  so  early  as  the  third  day  ?  Does  not  the  mental  revul¬ 
sion  from  which  the  visions  of  Christ  are  supposed  to  have 
proceeded,  need  a  longer  space  of  time  for  its  development  ? 
Certainly  ;  but  Paul  only  says  that  Jesus  rose  on  the  third 
day,  not  that  he  appeared  at  the  same  time  (pp.  310^  311). 

2  G 


466 


THE  IIESUIUIECTION  OF  CUEIST. 


[lect.  vil 


We  must  therefore  suppose  the  matter  to  have  taken  place 
thus:  “After  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus,  his  disciples,  in  their 
first  panic,  fled  back  to  their  homes  in  Galilee.  There,  in  the 
regions  which  they  had  so  often  traversed  with  him,  they 
Avere  constantly  aroused  to  recall  anew  his  picture.  The 
longer  period  Avhich  in  this  way  elapsed  would  give  time  for 
the  revolution  in  the  feelings  of  the  disciples  ”  (pp.  315,  316). 
And  here,  then,  the  visions  took  place.  True,  this  is  contra¬ 
dicted  by  the  Gospels,  which  all  mention  the  first  appearances 
'of  the  risen  Saviour  as  taking  place  in  Jerusalem  and  its 
neiglibourlwod ;  and  even  Matthew,  who  tells  of  the  angel 
commanding  the  disciples  to  come  into  Galilee,  immediately 
aftei’Avards  relates  how  Jesus  appeared  to  women  from  Jeru¬ 
salem.  But  “  there  nei^er  was  a  thing  so  utterly  superfluous 
as  this  first  appearance  of  Christ  in  klatthew  ;  it  is  a  later  in¬ 
terpolation  into  the  narrative  on  Avhich  Matthew  founded 
his  story  of  the  resurrection”  (p.  314).  For  it  was  not  until 
afterwards  that  the  manifestation  of  the  resurrection  was 
transferred  to  Jerusalem  and  the  third  dav,  in  order  that 
“  death  might  only  have  a  short-lived  power  over  the  crucified 
Messiah  ”  (p.  315). 

This  is  the  view  of  Strauss.  He  uses  the  same  violence 
towards  the  records  in  carrying  through  his  hypothesis  as  in' 
making  way  for  it.  What  he  really  offers  as  an  explanation 
of  the  belief  in  the  resurrection,  amounts  merely  to  power¬ 
ful  imagination,  excitement  of  the  nervous  life,  intensified 
emotions,  and  visions  resulting  therefrom. 

For  a  historical  demonstration  of  the  actuality  of  Christ’s 
resurrection,  Strauss  demands  a  double  proof :  first,  it  must  be 
shown  that  the  direct  testimonies  to  the  reality  of  this  fact 
should  meet  all  the  requirements  of  historical  testimonies ; 
second,  it  must  be  proved  that  Avithout  the  occurrence  in  ques¬ 
tion,  other  events  Avhich  are  historically  certain  could  not  have 
taken  place. ^  Well,  we  think  that  these  tivo  things  may  he 
yroved :  the  historical  credibility  of  our  testimonies,  and  the 
impossibility  of  explaining  certain  indubitable  facts, — such  as 
the  belief  of  the  disciples  in  Christ’s  resurrection  ;  the  sudden 
reA'olution  in  their  consciousness,  their  preaching,  and  the 
Church  thereby  gathered  and  founded  on  this  belief ;  but 
*  Die  Halben  u.  die  Ganzen,  p.  125  ;  cf.  Lehen  Jesu,  p.  289. 


LECT.  VII.] 


THE  HISTOEICAL  TESTIMONIES, 


467 


especially  the  sudden  conversion  of  St.  Paul, — ivitliout  having 
recourse  to  the  resurrection  as  a  fact,  and  not  a  mere  vision. 
We  will  now  proceed  to  consider  the  historical  testimonies, — 
first,  that  of  the  Gospels,  then  that  of  St.  Paul  (especially  his 
vision  of  Christ  before  Damascus), — and  we  shall  see  whether 
the  enemies  of  these  records  are  right,  or  whether  their  credi¬ 
bility  fulfils  the  first  half  of  Strauss’  demand. 

II. - THE  HISTORICAL  TESTIMONIES. 

Strauss  demands  that  these  should  be  direct  testimonies, 
proceeding  from  eye-witnesses.  Now,  according  to  his  pre¬ 
suppositions,  the  only  book  of  the  New  Testament  which  could 
possibly  have  proceeded  from  an  apostle  is  the  Picvelation  of 
St.  John;  and  this  book,  he  says,  “does  not  go  beyond  the 
general  belief  that  Jesus  had  been  killed,  and  was  now  alive 
again  and  immortal”  (p.  298),  Is  this  correct?  The  con¬ 
tradiction  which  this  proposition  contains  shows  how  untenable 
such  an  interpretation  of  the  passages  in  question  must  be. 
For  only  that  can  live  again  which  was  before  dead ;  but  this 
was  not  the  case  with  the  immortal  spirit  of  Christ,  only  with 
His  body.  If,  then,  the  Book  of  Eevelation  teach  that  Christ 
is  living  again,  it  witnesses  to  His  resurrection.  But  it  does 
so  even  directly.  In  chap.  i.  5,  Christ  is  called  “the  First- 
begotten  of  the  dead.”  This  certainly  cannot  mean  the  first 
of  those  who  lived  immortal  after  death,  for  there  were  enough 
such  before  Christ ;  it  must  mean  the  first  among  the  dead  who 
again  came  to  life,  and  who,  because  He  had  broken  the  power 
of  death,  has  become  the  source  of  new  life  for  all  who  have 
died,  i.e.  the  first  risen  One,  who  is  the  resurrection  and  the 
life  for  all  others.  In  the  same  manner,  chap.  ii.  8 — “which 
was  dead  and  lived  ”  (e^rjaev) — mentions  both,  dying  and  coming 
to  life,  equally  as  historical  facts,  and  must  be  understood  in 
the  same  way.  What  our  Lord  says  in  i.  18,  “I  have  the 
keys  of  hell  and  of  death,”  i.e.  power  over  death  and  the  king¬ 
dom  of  the  dead,  would  not  be  fully  true  if  a  part  of  Christ, 
viz.  His  body,  had  remained  in  the  bondage  of  death.  Here, 
then,  we  have  (especially  in  ii.  8)  an  historical  testimony  from 
an  apostle  for  the  resurrection  of  Christ’s  body,  which  can  be 
overlooked  only  by  a  most  superficial  exegesis. 


468 


THE  RE3UREECTI0X  OF  CHRIST. 


[lect.  VII. 


StraiTSs  will  not  acknowledge  the  Gospels  as  direct  testimonies, 
because  none  of  them  was  written  by  an  apostle  or  eye-witness 
of  the  life  of  Christ.  But  we  have  already  seen  that  even  the 
most  negative  critics  in  our  day  grant  that  they  belong  to  the 
apostolic  age,  when  there  must  at  least  have  been  many  such 
eye-witnesses  living  Moreover,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind 
that  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  declares  itself  to  have  been  written 
by  an  eye-witness  (xix.  35,  xxi.  24),  and  would  therefore,  if 
genuine,  abundantly  fulfil  Strauss’  first  postulate.  But  its 
genuineness  is  maintained  even  by  such  critics  as  Schleier- 
macher,  Credner,  Lachmann,  Ewald,  Hase,  and  Bitschl,  to  say 
nothing  of  more  orthodox  men,  such  as  Gaussen,  Hengstenbero;, 
Tischendorf,  Ptiggenbach,  Oosterzee,  and  many  others.  Time 
and  space  would  fail  us  to  go  into  this  question  here.  Only 
to  one  thing  I  would  draw  your  attention.  Notice  the  extra¬ 
ordinary  vividness  in  St.  John's  narrative  of  the  resnrreetion, 
and  see  how,  in  a  multitude  of  minute  and  delicate  details,  it 
bears  the  impress  of  personal  experience  {e.g.  the  way  in  which 
Peter  and  John  go  together  to  the  grave ;  the  description  of 
the  interior;  the  bearing  of  Mary  INIagdalene,  etc.).  None  but 
an  eye-witness  can  have  described  the  event  with  such  original 
freshness  and  vividness.  In  fact,  their  exactness  in  isolated 
details  speaks  strongly  for  the  authenticity  of  these  narratives  ; 
the  more  so,  the  more  numerous  the  aj)pearances  which  they 
relate  as  vouchsafed  to  different  persons,  and  under  different 
circumstances.  ' 

Here  Strauss  (like  his  predecessor,  the  author  of  the  Wolfen- 
liittcl  Fragments)  meets  us  "with  a  second  objection,  viz.  the 
variations  and  contradictions  in  the  narratives  of  the  resurrection. 
AVe  will  not  deny  that  there  may  be  certain  differences  and 
inexactnesses  of  statement  in  the  gospel  accounts.  But  arc 
these  really  important  and  irreconcilable  contradictions,  casting 
suspicion  on  the  great  fact  itself  ?  Let  us  see. 

Even  in  the  succession  of  Christ's  appearctnces  there  are  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  serious  differences.  According  to  Mark  xvi,  9,  He 
appears  first  to  Mary  Magdalene  ;  according  to  Matt,  xxviii.  9, 
to  her  and  the  “  other  Mary  ”  together ;  and  according  to  St. 
Paul’s  account  in  1  Cor.  xv.  5,  to  Cephas  (Peter).  But  does 
any  one  of  these  pledge  himself  to  relate  all  the  appearances 
of  the  risen  Saviour  ?  Strauss  himself  confesses  that  this  is 


LECT.  VII.] 


THE  HISTORICAL  TESTIMOA'IES. 


40  9 


not  the  case  (p.  292).  Does  not  each  one  choose  from  the 
rich  treasure  of  tradition  this  or  that  appearance  first,  so  that 
they  supplement,  but  do  not  contradict  one  another  ?  If,  e.g., 
Matthew,  in  relating  what  happened  to  the  women  on  the 
Easter  morning,  blends  into  one  several  traits  which  according 
to  the  other  evangelists  are  separate,  is  this  so  very  important  a 
difference  ?  If  we  compare  the  gospel  narratives  with  that  of 
St.  Paul,  we  see  ten  appearances  of  Christ,  which  probably  took 
place  in  the  following  order :  (1)  IMary  Magdalene  sees  the 
Lord  first,  on  coming  to  the  grave  the  second  time  (Mark  xvi. 
9  ;  John  xx.  16),  after  having  told  Peter  and  John  that  the 
stone  is  rolled  away,  and  the  grave  empty.  (2)  The  other 
women,  ]\Iary  the  mother  of  James,  and  Salome,  having  heard 
the  angel’s  joyful  message,  hurry  back  in  fear  and  great  joy, 
whereupon  the  Lord  meets  them  (Matt,  xxviii.  9,  10).  (3)  He 

also  appears  in  the  course  of  the  same  day  to  Peter  (Luke 
xxiv.  34  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  5)  ;  (4)  in  the  evening,  to  two  disciples 
on  their  way  to  Emmaus  (Luke  xxiv.  15  et  ss.)  ;  (5)  and 
after  this  to  the  ten  apostles  (without  Thomas)  assembled  in 
Jerusalem  (Luke  xxiv.  36—44  ;  John  xx.  19  et  ss).  (6)'  On  the 
Sunday  following,  He  appears  to  the  apostles,  with  Thomas  (John 
XX.  26  et  ss.).  All  these  appearances  took  place  in  Jerusalem 
and  the  neighbourhood,  shortly  after  the  resurrection.  Then 
come  those  between  Passover  and  Pentecost,  when  the  pilgrims 
to  the  former  feast  had  returned  to  Galilee,  viz. :  (7)  at  the 
Lake  of  Tiberias  (Johnxxi.  1  et  ss.)  to  seven  disciples ;  (8)  the 
great  manifestation  on  a  mountain  in  Galilee  to  all  the  disciples 
(Matt,  xxviii.  16  ff. ;  Mark  xvi.  15—18  ;  Luke  xxiv.  45—49), 
and  probably  at  the  same  time  to  the  500  mentioned  in  1  Cor. 
XV.  6 ;  (9)  the  special  appearance  accorded  to  James  the 
brother  of  the  Lord  (1  Cor.  xv.  7),  when,  perhaps,  the  disciples 
were  exhorted  to  return  earlier  than  usual  to  keep  the  feast  of 
Pentecost  at  Jerusalem.  (10)  The  final  appearance  is  that  to 
the  apostles  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  which  concluded  with 
the  ascension  (Mark  xvi.  19;  Luke  xxiv.  50  et  ss. ;  Acts 
i.  4-12).' 

In  this  manner  the  various  appearances,  although  not  fully 
enumerated  in  any  one  record,  may  be  brought  together. 

*  The  same  order  has  been  observed  by  Greiner  in  his  book  on  The  resurrection 
oj  Jesus  Christ  from  the  deadj  Carlsruhe  (1869). 


470 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST. 


[LECT.  VII. 


Strauss  objects  to  this,  first,  that  John,  xxi.  14,  mentions  the 
appearance  at  the  Sea  of  Tiberias  as  being  the  third  (instead 
of  the  seventh)  ;  and  secondly,  that  John  does  not  count  in 
the  appearance  before  the  500.  The  former  difficulty  is  easily 
explained  by  the  fact  that  St.  J ohn  is  here  only  reckoning  the 
appearances  among  assembled  disciples,  of  which  only  two  (the 
fifth  and  sixth)  had  gone  before.  The  latter  objection  is  futile, 
since  Christ  did  not  appear  to  the  500  till  later  (the  eighth 
time),  while  Strauss  himself  confesses  that  St.  John  does  not 
say  that  the  appearance  at  the  Sea  of  Tiberias  was  the  last 
(p.  292).  St.  Paul  too,  in  1  Cor.  xv.,  does  not  wish  to  give  a 
judicial  protocol  of  all  our  Lord’s  appearances,  but  only  to  show 
the  number  of  witnesses,  and  their  authority,  and  therefore 
leaves  out  the  women. 

But  we  are  told  that  there  are  far  greater  contradictions  in 
respect  of  the  duration  and  the  locality  of  these  appearances. 
True,  all  the  evangelists  and  St.  Paul  agree  that  Christ  rose 
again  on  the  third  day  (p.  313).  But  the  length  of  time 
during  which  His  appearances  took  place  is  fixed  in  Acts  i.  3 
at  forty  days,  whereas  Luke  connects  the  last  words  of  the 
Lord  immediately  with  His  appearance  to  the  disciples  on  the 
evening  of  Easter  Sunday,  so  that  scarce  a  day  would  seem  to 
have  elapsed  between  the  resurrection  and  the  ascension,  and 
there  would  have  been  no  time  for  the  appearances  in  Galilee. 
Moreover,  if,  according  to  Luke  xxiv.  29,  Jesus  commanded 
the  disciples  to  remain  in  Jerusalem  until  they  were  endowed 
wdth  power  from  on  high.  He  cannot,  as  Matthew  relates, 
have  directed  them  to  Galilee  on  the  morning  of  His  resurrec¬ 
tion  (p.  293). 

This  apparent  contradiction,  however,  is  very  simply  ex¬ 
plained.  Had  we  only  the  narrative  of  St.  Luke,  we  should 
certainly  have  thougiit  that  Jesus  ascended  to  heaven  on  the 
first  day  after  the  resurrection.  But  how  often  do  the  evan¬ 
gelists  bring  together  savings  of  Christ  which  were  in  point 
of  time  separated  by  weeks  and  months !  This  is  the  case 
here  with  St.  Luke.  He  evidently  collated  the  most  important 
of  our  Lord’s  last  utterances,  without  regard  to  differences  of 
time,  and  so  blends  together  sayings  which  the  other  evan¬ 
gelists,  and  he  himself  in  Acts  i.,  give  separately  in  chrono¬ 
logical  order.  If  (as  was  done  by  us  above)  Luke  xxiv, 


LECT.  VII.] 


THE  HISTORICAL  TESTIMONIES. 


471 


36-43  or  44  be  taken  to  apply  to  the  fifth  appearance  of 
our  Lord,  and  vers.  45-49  as  spoken  at  His  eighth  appear¬ 
ance  in  Galilee,  then  all  is  clear  ;  for  then  ver.  49  contains 
a  direction  for  the  disciples  vdio  are  in  Galilee  (or  perhaps 
already  returned  to  Jerusalem)  to  wait  for  the  blessing  of 
Pentecost  at  Jerusalem.  This  direction  was  not  therefore 
given,  as  Strauss  would  have  it,  “  on  the  resurrection  day,” 
but  after  the  journey  of  the  disciples  to  Galilee,  so  tliat  all 
appearance  of  a  contradiction  to  Matt,  xxviii.  7  and  10  is 
removed. 

But  again,  it  is  objected  that  JMatthew  and  IMark  gravely 
contradict  themselves,  because  on  the  one  hand  they  make 
Jesus  appear  in  Jerusalem  on  Easter  morning  to  the  women, 
but  on  the  other  hand  they  relate  how  the  angels  and  our"^ 
Lord  Himself  direct  the  disciples  to  go  to  Galilee  that  they 
may  see  Him  there.  “  If  Jesus  had  indicated  to  the  disciples 
that  Galilee  was  the  place  where  they  should  see  him,  we 
cannot  conceive  what  should  have  moved  him  to  show  him¬ 
self  to  them  on  the  same  day  in  Jerusalem”  (p.  293).  How 
strange  if,  immediately  after  the  direction  to  go  to  Galilee, 

“  Jesus  himself  should  step  into  the  women’s  way !  What 
reason  could  he  have  had  for  so  quickly  giving  up  the  plan 
wdiich  he  had  only  just  proclaimed  through  an  angel  ?  ”  (pp. 
313,  314.) 

A  pitiable  objection  this,  in  good  sooth,  and  quite  charac¬ 
teristic  of  the  heartless  ways  of  one  who  is  utterly  unable  to 
transport  himself  into  the  conditions  and  times  whose  historian 
he  lays  claim  to  be.  Only  look  at  the  difference  between  the 
first  appearances  in  and  about  Jerusalem,  and  that  latter  one 
on  the  mountain  in  Galilee.  In  the  former,  the  Lord  appears 
quite  unexpectedly  and  suddenly,  and  soon  disappears  again  ; 
to  the  latter.  He  had  bid  the  whole  body  of  disciples,  and 
d'.ubtless  remained  longer  in  their  midst.  This  Avas  the  chief 
nmnifestation,  in  which  He  openly  asserts  His  participation  in 
the  government  of  the  world,  institutes  baptism,  commands 
that  the  gospel  should  be  preached  in  all  the  world,  and 
promises  ever  to  be  with  His  people.  Ear  from  this  longer 
and  more  detailed  manifestation  excluding  the  first  more  fleet¬ 
ing  appearances  in  Jerusalem,  the  latter  v^ere  rather  a  neces- 
.  sary  and  fitting  preparation  for  the  former — not  an  alteration 


472 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST. 


[lect.  VII. 


of  His  original  plan.  And  must  not  love  have  driven  Jesus 
to  dry  the  tears  of  His  followers  as  soon  as  possible^  and  to 
change  their  deep  sorrow  into  the  joyous  assurance  of  victory  ? 
Could  He,  might  He  pass  by  His  disciples,  so  bowed  down 
through  grief,  without  giving  them  a  single  word  of  comfort 
from  His  lips  ?  Could  He  wait  so  long  with  the  ocular  proof  of 
His  victory  till  His  disciples  were  all  assembled  in  Galilee,  after 
the  close  of  the  feast  (to  terminate  which  they  remain  those 
eight  days  longer  in  Jerusalem)  ?  Nothing  was  more  natural 
than  that  He  should  appear  to  them  there.  Had  He  not  done 
so,  we  should  have  reason  to  be  perplexed. 

As  it  is,  all  these  events  succeed  each  other  in  a  way  which 
is  not  only  explicable,  but  necessary.  First  come  the  passing 
manifestations  in  Jerusalem,  intended  to  re-establish  the 
crushed  hopes  of  the  disciples  ;  then  a  pause  of  eight  days, 
during  which  they  have  time  to  recall  the  former  promises  of 
the  Lord,  that  He  would  rise  again,  and  especially  to  recognise 
His  terrible  death  in  the  light  of  the  Old  Testament  prophecies 
as  a  holy  necessity,  as  a  wise  and  merciful  decree  of  God 
(Luke  xxiv.  26,  44-46).  Then,  after  they  had  reached  this 
standpoint,  when  their  shaken  faith  was  again  confirmed  and 
deepened,  come  the  longer  communications,  the  last  revelations 
and  OTand  directions  as  to  their  callinfr,  first  in  Galilee,  then 
on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  which  once  was  the  scene  of  the 
Saviour’s  deepest  humiliation,  but  now  witnesses  His  exalta¬ 
tion  and  entrance  into  glory. 

Would  that  our  negative  critics,  before  trying  to  master 
Scripture  with  their  hair-splitting  logic,  only  took  the  trouble 
to  meditate  a  little  on  the  wisdom  and  beauty  of  God’s  ways 
which  are  depicted  therein  ! 

But  Strauss  himself  has  confessed  that,  in  order  to  make 
the  origin  of  his  visions  conceivable,  he  needs  a  longer  period 
between  the  death  of  Jesus  and  the  conviction  that  He  had 
risen  than  three  days.  Hence  his  frantic  efforts  to  do  away 
with  the  appearances  at  J erusalem  by  any  means ;  because,  if 
true  (even  subjectively),  they  would  cut  the  ground  from 
under  his  feet. 

Strauss  asks  why  the  disciples,  if  they  knew  of  the  resur¬ 
rection  of  Jesus  so  early  as  the  third  day,  waited  to  announce 
it  till  the  fiftieth  ?  He  will  not  accept  the  answer  given  by 


LECT.  VIL]  the  IIISTOPJCAL  TESTIMONIES.  473 

ttie  Acts,  “  that  they  had  to  wait  for  the  Holy  Ghost,”  be¬ 
cause  he  is  of  opinion  that  the  feast  of  Pentecost  was  fixed 
upon  as  the  day  when  the  Spirit  was  poured  out,  “  not  for 
historical,  but  for  dogmatic  reasons  ”  (p.  313).  Against  this 
we  remark :  first,  that  it  was  not  only  after  (Acts  i.  4  et  ss.), 
but  also  before  His  resurrection,  that  Jesus  commanded  His 
disciples  to  wait  for  the  Comforter ;  secondly,  that  after  the 
deep  trial  of  their  faith  through  the  death  of  Christ,  the 
disciples  naturally  enough  had  need  of  some  time  to  compose 
themselves,  and  prepare  for  their  coming  vocation  as  witnesses 
of  the  cross  ;  and  third,  that  to  endeavour  to  persuade  the 
Christian  Church  that  the  historical  miracle  of  Pentecost  did 
not  take  place,  is  as  reasonable  as  it  would  be  to  argue  with  a 
living  man  that  he  never  had  a  birthday. 

This  is  how  the  matter  stands  with  the  so-called  “  contra-  . 
dictions  ”  in  the  Gospel  histories  of  the  resurrection.  If  we 
look  at  them  closely,  they  dwindle  down  to  incompletenesses 
and  inaccuracies.  And  even  granting  their  non-agreement  in 
all  details,  is  not  the  cardinal  fact  clearly  and  quite  nnani- 
niously  related  by  them  ?  Do  they  not  all  say  that  Jesus 
rose  again  the  third  day,  and  appeared  in  Jerusalem  to  His 
disciples  ?  What  matters  it  much  to  ivhom  He  first  appeared, 
so  long  as  the  cardinal  point  that  Pie  appeared  is  a  certainty  ? 
Faith  depends  not  on  the  letter  of  Scripture,  but  upon  the 
essential  substance  of  the  facts  recorded  in  it.  And  this 
essential  substance  is  manifested,  not  only  by  the  agreements, 
but  even  “  by  the  differences  themselves ;  for  these  are  signs 
of  the  extraordinary  effect  which  the  resurrection  produced 
amongst  the  disciples,”  and  which  has  taken  an  individual 
shape  in  each  of  the  narrators.  Even  a  critic  like  Lessing 
remarks  :  “  It  cannot  possibly  be  otherwise  than  that  each  of 
several  witnesses  seeing  the  same  thing  at  the  same  time,  and 
in  the  same  place,  should  hear  and  see,  and  therefore  relate  it 
differently,  for  the  attention  of  each  one  is  differently  directed.” 
Thus  the  events  of  the  resurrection  appear  “  fixed  in  indelible 
memories,  which  were  variously  and  yet  harmoniously  shaped 
according  to  the  standpoint  of  the  different  disciples.  In  these 
records  there  is  fixed  for  ever  the  startled  joy  of  the  Church  at 
the  great  news  of  the  resurrection.  Here,  as  in  a  festal  choir, 
though  the  voices  seem  at  times  to  be  confused,  isolated,  or 


474 


THE  EESUEEECTION  OF  CHRIST. 


[lect.  til 


contrary,  yet  they  all  are  pursuing  one  theme  in  full,  grand, 
and  blissful  harmony.  We  may  clearly  see  the  rich  unity  of 
the  one  resurrection  history  amid  all  its  details.”  (Lange, 
uhi  sviJ.  p.  441.) 

Indeed,  we  may  well  say  that  the  differences  in  these  accounts 
exclude  all  idea,  of  an  intention  to  deceive.  If  the  evangelists 
had  been  consciously  inventing,  the  simplest  prudence  would 
have  made  them  avoid  all  traces  of  difference  in  their  accounts. 

Another,  and  a  special  proof  of  their  historical  veracity,  is 
the  way  in  which  they  mahe  our  Lord  a^mcar.  Were  they 
legends  that  had  arisen  from  the  visions  of  enthusiasts,  they 
would  certainly  have  represented  the  Lord  quite  differently, 
probably  in  all  the  blaze  of  heavenly  glory,  as  He  might  be 
expected  according  to  Dan.  vii.  13,  14,  x.  5,  6.^  But  in 
these  accounts  the  risen  Christ,  with  all  His  dignity,  appears 
in  such  unpretending  humanity,  in  such  a  natural  state  ot 
transition  between  human  lowliness  and  divine  glory,  that 
this  utter  absence  of  all  extravagance  is  a  striking  testimony 
to  the  truth  of  that  which  is  thus  related. 

But  how  can  this  be  ?  Is  not  the  way  in  which  Christ  still 
appears  in  His  body  just  the  most  enigmatical  part  of  the 
whole  matter  ?  And,  indeed,  the  most  offence  of  all  has  per¬ 
haps  been  taken  at  the  nature  of  the  resurrection  body.  It  has 
been  said  that  the  Gospel  accounts  lead  to  quite  contradictory 
notions  as  to  the  quality  of  Christ’s  bodily  life  during  those 
forty  days.  At  one  time  He  allows  Llimself  to  be  felt  and 
touched,  eats  and  drinks,  showing  Himself  to  be  capable  of 
taking  bodily  nourishment  even  though  He  may  not  need  it : 
at  another  time  His  bodily  substance  would  appear  to  be 
supersensuous ;  it  is  not  bound  down  to  the  limits  of  space ; 
He  comes  through  shut  doors,  and  suddenly  vanishes  again  ; 
He  can  even  assume  different  shapes  (Mark  xvi.  1  2).  What 
contradictions  !  our  opponents  triumphantly  exclaim.  “  A 
body  which  can  be  felt  cannot  pass  through  shut  doors,  and 
vice  versa  a  body  which  without  hindrance  passes  through 
boards  cannot  have  bones,  mor  a  stomach  to  digest  bread  and 
broiled  fish”  (Strauss,  p.  295). 

Ever  since  the  date  of  the  Wolfcnbilttcl  Fragments  this  con- 

•  Compare  the  visions  of  the  Anabaptists  in  Minister  at  the  time  of  the 
Reformation. 


LECT.  VII.] 


THE  HISTOL’ICAL  TESTIMONIES. 


475 


tradiction  has  been  urged  in  disproof  of  the  truth  of  the  resur¬ 
rection.  But  it  rather  speaks  for  it.  For  how  should  only 
one,  evangelist,  to  say  nothing  of  all  together,  have  made  a 
description  to  all  appearance  so  contradictory  and  utterly 
unheard  of,  unless  it  necessarily  followed  from  the  nature  of 
the  case  ?  Would  not  an  invented  story  betray  itself  too 
glaringly  in  this  matter  ?  Evidently  it  was  only  because  the 
evangelists  considered  the  truth  of  the  resurrection  to  be:..^ 
beyond  all  question  that  they  could  venture  to  add  to  this 
great  miracle  such  strange  appearances  of  their  risen  Master. 
That  they  did  so,  proves  their  good  conscience  in  the  matter. 

Like  every  primal  generation,  the  nature  of  the  resurrection 
body  of  Him  who  was  “  the  First-fruits  of  them  that  slept  ” 
must  remain  a  mystery.  We  cannot  form  any  clear  concep¬ 
tion  of  the  process  by  which  the  corpse  of  Christ  was  trans¬ 
muted  into  a  glorified  body,  nor  can  we  understand  the  nature 
of  tlie  latter.  We  can  only  recall  to  our  minds  that  heavy 
water  is  changed  into  light  vapour,  or  dark  flint  into  trans¬ 
parent  glass,  by  heat ;  or  that  the  caterpillar  which  slowly 
crawls  along  the  ground,  at  length  grows  into  an  airy  butter¬ 
fly.  And  thus  the  glorified  body  of  Clirist  was  not  altered  as 
regards  its  fundamental  components  ;  it  was  the  same  lochj,  '' 
with  the  marks  of  the  nails  and  the  wound  in  its  side,  but  in 
a  new  s'piritiial  form  of  existence,  and  therefore  standing  render 
other  laws}  It  therefore  appears — until  the  ascension,  when 
its  transformation  was  completed — as  an  elementar^g  earthly, 
material  body ;  but  its  elements  are  no  longer  bound  by  space, 
and  it  can  go  here  or  there,  make  itself  visible  or  invisible 
— in  fact,  shape  itself  outwardly  according  to  the  internal  will. 
And  this  is  possible,  because  the  body  is  spirit ucdized  through 
and  through;  it  has  become  an  adequate  expression  of  the 
spirit,  and  its  willing  instrument.  The  body  no  longer  opposes 
its  own  laws  (of  space,  gravitation,  motion,  etc.)  to  the  voli¬ 
tions  of  the  spirit ;  it  does  not  hinder  nor  limit  them,  but 
implicitly  obeys.  All  strife  is  at  an  end.  If  the  spirit  will 
to  transport  itself  to  any  place,  it  can  do  so  together  with  the 
body  ;  the  body  no  longer  hinders  it,  for  it  is  saturated  with 
vital  force  and  immortality.  This  is  what  the  Scriptures  (1 

*  Cf.  Steiiime3’er,  Die  Au/erslehungsgescJikJite  des  Herrn  (1871),  pp.  120 

et  ss. 


476 


THE  EESUUREOTION  OF  CHRIST. 


[LECT.  VII. 


Cor.  XV.  44-46)  call  a  “spiritual  1-ody”  (cru)fjia  Trvev/xaTLKov) 
iu  contradistinction  to  the  “  natural  body  ”  (o-.  y^v^iKov). 

In  this  resurrection  body  the  Lord  stands  during  those  forty 
days,  as  it  were,  on  the  boundary  line  of  both  worlds ;  He 
bears  the  impress  of  this  as  well  as  a  future  state  of  existence. 
It  is  therefore  no  contradiction — as  Strauss  would  have  it — 
that  this  body  sometimes  manifested  the  force  of  repulsion 
(when  touched),  and  at  other  times  not  (when  penetrating 
through  closed  doors) ;  for  it  could  do  so  or  not,  according  to 
the  will  of  the  spirit.  Doors  could  not  keep  out  that  which 
is  in  a  spiritual  state  of  existence.  Since  all  matter,  too,  is 
well  known  to  be  porous,  it  can  form  no  absolute  barrier  for 
the  spirit.  We  cannot  wonder,  moreover,  that  this  body, 
being  formed  from  the  same  essential  elements  as  the  former 
earthly  one,  should  be  capable  of  eating  food  (Luke  xxiv.  43  ; 
Acts  X.  41),  though  not  needing  it,  especially  as  the  same 
thing  is  mentioned  in  the  case  of  angels  (Gen.  xviii.  8).  Our 
Lord  does  not  “  digest  ”  this  food,  as  Strauss  coarsely  puts  it, 
but  He  assimilates  it  in  some  way  or  other,  and  transmutes  it 
into  His  spiritual  form  of  existence,  so  that  it  cannot  hinder 
Him  from  disappearing.  For  we  must  not  forget  that  it  is 
not  earthly  matter  per  se  which  is  incapable  of  being  developed 
into  a  spiritual  state  of  existence,  but  only  the  defilement 
which  cleaves  to  it  in  our  fallen  condition  that  prevents  this. 
The  terrestrial  hody  as  such  is  destined  to  he  spiritualized ;  but 
if  this  is  its  destiny,  it  must  also  possess  the  capability.  This 
shows  us  at  the  same  time  the  reason  why  the  sinless  body  of 
Christ  could  be  immediately  transmuted.  Its  purity  was  the 
possibility  of  its  transformation. 

In  this  manner  we  see  that  the  enigma  of  our  Lord’s  resur- 
rection  body,  with  its  wondrous  appearances,  no  longer  con¬ 
tains  any  inexplicable  contradiction.  And  after  what  we  have 
said,  it  will  be  evident  that  the  Gospel  narratives  of  the 
resurrection  may  be  looked  upon  without  suspicion,  either  by 
reason  of  their  differences  from  one  another,  or  of  their  special 
purport. 

But  even  supposing  that  from  some  cause  or  other  the 
testimony  of  the  four  Gospels  were  not  valid,  still  we  have 
another  witness  for  the  truth  of  the  resurrection,  whose  testi¬ 
mony  no  criticism  can  invalidate,  viz.  the  Apostle  Paul. 


LECT.  YIL] 


THE  IIISTOEICAL  TESTIMONIES. 


477 


"Were  he  to-^tand  quite  alone,  he  would  afford  a  perfect  and 
adequate  refutation  of  all  arguments  against  the  Church’s  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  resurrection,  as  well  as  of  the  visionary  hypothesis. 
Tliis  is  evident,  partly  from  his  testimony,  partly  from  his 
personal  history. 

First,  let  us  listen  to  his  testimony.  In  Eomans  vi.  4,  the 
expression,  “  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory 
of  the  Father,”  cannot  he  reconciled  with  the  “visionary 
theory  ”  of  the  resurrection  ;  for  the  latter  is  here  represented 
as  a  consequence  of  the  objective  mighty  working  of  God,  not 
of  subjective  action  of  the  human  nerves  and  imagination. 
Those  of  our  opponents  who  acknowledge  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians  to  have  been  w'ritten  by  St.  Paul,  we  would  refer 
to  chap.  i.  19,  20  of  the  same,  which  speaks  of  “the  working 
of  His  mighty  power,  which  He  (the  Father  of  glory,  ver.  17) 
wrought  in  Christ  when  He  raised  Him  from  the  dead  ”  (cf. 
Phil.  iii.  21).  But  St.  Paul’s  chief  testimony,  every  word  of 
which  breathes  a  firm  and  joyous  conviction  of  its  truth,  is  con¬ 
tained  in  1  Cor.  xv. :  “For  I  delivered  unto  you  first  of  all 
that  which  I  also  received,  how  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins 
according  to  the  Scriptures,  and  that  He  was  buried,  and  that 
He  rose  again  the  third  day  according  to  the  Scriidures ;  and 
that  He  ivas  seen  of  Ceyduis,  then  of  the  twelve.  After  that  He 
ivas  seen  of  above  five  hundred  brethren  at  once,  of  lohom  the 
greater  gart  o-cmain  unto  this  present,  but  some  are  fcdlen  asle^v- 
After  that.  He  was  seen  of  James,  then  of  cdl  the  apostles,  and 
last  of  all  He  ivas  seen  of  me.  .  .  .  Therefore,  whether  it 
were  I  or  they,  so  we  preach,  and  so  ye  believed.  Now,  if 
Christ  be  preached  that  He  rose  from  the  dead,  how  say  some 
among  you  that  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the  dead  ?” 

In  these  terse  and  clear  words,  the  force  of  which  is  in¬ 
voluntarily  felt  even  by  the  present  opponents  of  the  resurrec¬ 
tion,  there  is  contained  a  double  testimony.  First,  St.  Paul 
here  wdtn esses  to  many  appearances  that  were  vouchsafed  to 
other  disciples,  in  a  way  which  (as  we  showed)  is  perfectly 
consonant  with  the  Gospel  accounts,  and  in  the  language  of 
an  historical  record  which  Strauss  in  vain  endeavours  to 
represent  as  a  mere  tradition  of  the  subjective  belief  that  the 
Lord  had  been  seen.  The  value  of  this  testimony  cannot  be 
lessened  by  Strauss’  arbitrary  objection,  that  it  is  doubtful 


478 


THE  EESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST. 


[LECT.  YII. 


whether  St.  Paul  ever  inquired  closely  into  the  reasons  which 
the  apostles  had  for  believing  in  a  real  resurrection.  How 
incomprehensible  that  a  Pharisee,  theoretically  and  practically 
intimate  with  all  the  statutes  of  Judaism,  and  a  much  feared 
enemy  of  the  Christians,  should  suddenly  have  adopted  this 
new  faith,  thereby  changing  all  his  former  religious  convic¬ 
tions,  without  assuring  himself  of  the  truth  of  those  facts  on 
which  his  new  faith  was  founded !  How  incomprehensible 
that  this  man  should  have  preached  before  Jews  and  Greeks 
about  the  crucified  and  risen  Jesus,  and  entered  into  many  a 
discussion  on  the  subject  with  their  wise  men,  without  having 
inquired  closely  into  the  objective  proofs  for  the  truth  of  his 
own  doctrine  !  This  testimony  to  the  appearances  of  Christ 
amongst  the  apostles  retains  its  full  historical  value.  . 

It  is  important  to  notice  that  St.  Paul,  in  ver.  6,  appeals 
for  a  confirmation  of  what  he  says  to  witnesses  who  were  still 
living.  Now  any  ordiuary  writer  who  should  appeal  for  a 
verification  of  his  statements  to  living  witnesses  would,  for  the 
sake  of  his  literary  honour,  be  sure  to  employ  the  utmost  cau¬ 
tion.  And  shall  we  suppose  that  a  man  like  St.  Paul,  writing 
to  the  Church  in  such  a  world-renowned  city  as  Corinth,  and 
relatinq-  a  fact  on  which  he  rests  the  whole  Christian  faith, 
should  appeal  to  well-known  witnesses  without  being  sure  of 
their  veracity  ?  Clearly  this  is  a  moral  impossibility.^ 

In  the  second  place,  St.  Paul  appears  as  eye-witness  to  an 
appearance  of  the  risen  Christ  which  was  vouchsafed  to  him¬ 
self  :  “  Last  of  all,  He  was  seen  of  me  also.”  Every  one  is 
agreed  that  this  refers  to  the  appearance  before  Damascus, 
which  was  the  turning-point  of  his.  life.  How  are  we  to 
regard  this :  as  an  inward  or  as  an  outward  event  ?  Since 
St.  Paul  places  this  experience  of  his  in  the  same  category  as 
the  manifestations  accorded  to  the  other  apostles,  and  speaks 
of  it  in  precisely  the  same  terms,  it  is  evident  that  if  it  be  a 
merely  inward  occurrence,  suspicion  must  be  cast  upon  the 
other  manifestations  of  our  Lord  ;  whereas,  if  it  can  only  be 
conceived  of  as  an  external  event,  this  will  be  a  strong 
argument  in  favour  of  our  Lord’s  other  appearances  being 
externally  objective — i.e.  it  will  militate  greatly  against  the 
visionary  hypothesis.” 


*  C£  Kalinis,  uhi  sup. 


LECT.  VII.] 


THE  IIISTOHICAL  TESTIMONIES. 


479 


In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  we  have  a  threefold  minute 
history  of  St.  Paul’s  conversion,  chap.  ix.  1-30,  xxii.  1-21, 
ibJcsii.  4-23  ;  and  in  both  the  latter  passages, it  is  St.  Paul 
himself  who  is  relating  his  own  history.  Strauss  himself 
confesses  that  this  threefold  narrative  “  sounds  quite  as  if  it 
had  been  an  outward  sensuous  phenomenon”  (p.  299).  In 
all  three  accounts,  too,  the  main  points  are  clearly  and  con¬ 
formably  stated  : — the  visible  appearance  of  a  light  which 
cast  Paul  to  the  ground  and  blinded  him  for  some  days  ;  the 
voice,  “  Saul^  Saul,  why  persecutest  thou  me  ?”  and  the  answer, 
“  I  am  Jesus,  whom  thou  persecutest the  direction  to  go  to 
Damascus,  and  the  transformation  of  Saul,  under  the  hands  of 
Ananias,  into  a  soldier  of  Christ.  But  critics  have  laboured 
much  over  the  small  variations  in  these  accounts.  Baur  ^  seeks 
to  explain  them  by  referring  them  to  the  “  pragmatism  ”  of  the 
writer,  who  alters  the  narrative  in  each  different  connection 
according  to  his  purpose  in  bringing  it  in  there.  This  paltry 
criticism  has  been  well  met  by  the  remark,^  that  a  historian 
who  purposely  contradicts  himself  for  pragmatic  reasons  must 
indeed  be  a  strange  fool.  And  if  this  same  historian  promises 
in  the  introduction  to  his  Gospel  to  Avrite  so  that  we  might 
know  “  the  certainty  of  those  things  wherein  ”  we  have  been 
instructed,  and  then,  from  sharp-witted  pragmatism,  turns  so 
important  an  event  as  the  conversion  of  St.  Paul,  first  this 
way,  then  that,  common  sense  can  scarcely  help  thinking 
him  a  liar. 

But  what  do  these  differences  consist  of  ?  First,  the  com¬ 
munication  which  in  chaps,  ix.  and  xxii.  is  made  by  the  Lord 
through  Ananias,  is  immediately  attached  to  the  words  of 
Christ  Himself  in  chap.  xxvi.  This  simply  shoAvs  that  the 
narrative  in  chap.  xxvi.  is  condensed  in  comparison  Avith  the 
others,  and  this  Baur  himself  afterwards  confesses.  Again,  in 
chap.  ix.  7  the  companions  of  Paul  hear  Avithout  seeing ;  in 

*  Der  Apostel  Panlus,  chap.  iii.  ;  and  Klrchengescldclite  der  drei  ersten 
J ahrl Hinder te,  vol.  i.  p.  45  et  ss. 

^  Cf.  Beysclilag’s  excellent  articles  on  “  The  conversion  of  the  Apostle  Paul,” 
in  Studicn  u.  Kritiken,  1864,  Part  ii.  pp.  197  et  ss.  ;  and  on  “Tlie  visionary 
hypothesis  and  its  most  recent  defence”  (against  Ilolsten),  ibid.  1870,  Parts  i. 
and  II.  Also  Schulze  on  “The  testimony  of  the  Apostle  Paul  to  the  resurrec¬ 
tion  of  our  Lord,”  in  Beiveis  des  Glauhens,  1866,  p.  33  et  ss.  ;  and  Grenier,  uhi 
8up.  p.  73  et  ss. 


480 


THE  RESUREECTION  OF  CHRIST. 


[LECT.  VII. 


cliap.  xxii.  9,  they  see  without  hearing.  Formall}^  considered, 
this  is,  of  course,  a  contradiction ;  but  it  is  perfectly  explained 
if  we  consider  that  the  companions  of  Saul  only  received  a 
general  sensuous  impression  of  that  which  was  visible  and 
audible,  i.e.  the  light  and  the  sound,  without  either  clearly 
seeing  the  figure  or  distinguishing  the  words  spoken  by  the 
voice.  Only  we  must  not  lay  the  stress  upon  “  they  heard  ” 
and  “  they  heard  not,”  but  upon  the  words  “  of  Him  that  spake 
to  me.”  They  heard  the  sound  of  a  voice,  but  they  did  not 
hear  the  articulated  words  which  were  spoken  to  Saul  (just  as 
in  John  xii.  28,  29).  Nor  must  we  forget  that  by  “hear” 
St.  Paul  sometimes  means  “  understand  ”  (cf.  1  Cor.  xiv.  2). 
And  what  shall  we  say,  finally,  when  the  sharp  eyes  of  our 
critics  discover  the  flagrant  discrepancy  that  in  chap.  ix.  7 
the  companions  of  Saul  “  stand  speechless,  ”  in  xxii.  9  “  are 
afraid,  ”  and  in  xxvi.  1 4  fall  to  the  eartli  with  him  ?  Is  it 
not  a  perfect  farce,  for  the  sake  of  such  differences,  to  refuse 
to  believe  records  which  in  the  main  perfectly  confirm  one 
another  ?  What  liberties  do  critics  take  with  the  biblical 
writings  which  they  would  never  think  of  in  the  case  of  pro¬ 
fane  historians  !  Such  conduct  was  long  ago  condemned  by 
that  patriarch  of  critics,  Lessing,  who  says,  “  If  Livy,  and 
Dionysius,  and  Polybius,  and  Tacitus  are  so  generously  treated 
by  us  that  we  do  not  rack  them  for  every  single  syllable,  why 
should  we  not  act  in  the  same  way  towards  Matthew,  and 
Mark,  and  Luke,  and  John?” 

If  we  account  for  these  small  differences  by  referring  them 
to  the  different  historical  records  of  which  St.  Luke  made  use, 
and  which  he  did  not  wish  to  assimilate  down  to  the  last 
letter,  then  this  is  an  excellent  testimony  to  his  conscientious¬ 
ness  as  a  historian.  Then,  too,  that  which  is  unanimously 
recorded  by  all  three  authorities  gains  greatly  in  verification. 
Now  their  unanimous  testimony  is  this,  that  Christ  appeared 
to  Saul  extcrnaJly  and  objectively ;  not  merely  imcaxdly  in  a 
vision.  But  if  the  upholders  of  the  latter  view  argue  that 
Saul’s  companions  neither  saw  nor  heard  this  heavenly  vision, 
we  must  correct  this  statement  to  the  effect  that  they  did  not 
see  and  hear  it  distinctly;  but  they  did  receive  a  very  strong 
external  impression,  for  they  stood  speechless,  fearing,  and  fell 
to  the  earth.  That  they  did  not  understand  what  was  imme- 


LECT.  VII.] 


THE  HISTORICAL  TESTDIONIES. 


481 


diately  clear  to  Saul,  is  comprehensible  from  the  nature  of  the 
glorified  body,  which  shares  the  power  of  the  spirit  to  reveal 
itself  to  one  person  and  remain  wholly  or  partially  unperceived 
by  others,  according  to  circumstances. 

When  Baur  goes  on  to  stamp  the  part  played  by  Ananias 
as  a  myth,  we  cannot  help  asking  how  the  legend  came  to  fix 
on  a  person  so  little  known  as  Ananias,  and  why  it  did  not 
rather  make  the  Holy  Ghost  descend  straight  from  heaven  on 
St.  Paul,  as  on  the  other  apostles  ?  Baur  tries  to  explain  this 
by  the  supposition  that  the  writer  wished  to  recommend  St. 
Paul  to  the  Jewish  Christian  party  by  connecting  his  conver¬ 
sion  with  a  Jewish  Christian.  This  is  only  an  effect  of  Baur’s 
black  view  of  the  primitive  Christian  era,  which  makes  him 
everywhere  look  out  for  trajces  of  an  abrupt  opposition  between 
Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians, — between  followers  of  Peter 
and  of  Paul, — so  that  he  often  does  not  hesitate  to  represent 
the  most  artless  narrative  as  an  intentional  fabrication  or  a 
didactic  lie. 

But  putting  aside  the  Acts,  and  considering  only  the  direct 
testimony  of  St.  Paul  himself,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
passages  in  his  epistles  which  refer  to  that  event  can  only 
mean  an  external,  bodily  appearance  of  Christ,  and  not  a  mere 
internal  vision.  Take,  e.g.,  the  words  of  1  Cor.  xv.  8,  “  Last 
of  all.  He  was  seen  hy  me  also,”  and  of  1  Cor.  ix.  1,  “Am  I 
not  an  apostle  ?  have  I  not  seen  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ?  ” 
Strauss  acknowledges  this  testimony  as  proving,  in  conjunction 
with  the  Acts,  that  he  was  persuaded  that  he  had  seen  Christ, 
and  even  heard  words  from  Him  (p.  301);  but  he  tries  to  take 
away  the  point  of  it  by  saying  that  at  other  times  as  well  St. 
Paul  “  thought  he  had  heard  words  from  a  higher  world.” 
True,  in  2  Cor.  xii.  1  et  ss.  the  apostle  speaks  of  visions  and 
revelations  which  he  had  (proceeding,  however, /row  God,  and 
not  from  the  action  of  his  own  nerves  merely).  But  it  is  evi¬ 
dent  that  this  passage  does  not  refer  to  the  revelation  before 
Damascus,  which  took  place  much  earlier,  and  in  quite  a  dif¬ 
ferent  manner;  for  here  St.  Paul  is  “caught  up  into  paradise,”  and 
in  the  other  case  Christ  appeared  to  him  on  earth.  This  very 
passage  (2  Cor.  xii.),  then*,  shows  that  when  St.  Paid  is  speah- 
ing  of  visions,  he  expresses  himnelf  giiite  pecidiarly ;  he  describes 
himself  as  “  caught  up,”  and  does  not  know  whether  he  is  “  in. 

-x  H 


482 


THE  RESLTtEECTION  OF  CIIIHST. 


[lECT.  VII. 


the  body  or  out  of  the  body.”  So  that  even  if  the  apostle  did 
have  visions,  yet  it  is  evident  that  he  was  perfectly  well  able 
to  distinguish  between  what  he  saw  in  this  condition,  and  what 
he  perceived  with  his  senses  ;  and  that  he  should  have  deceived 
himself  so  as  to  confound  an  internal  with  an  external  occur¬ 
rence,  is  out  of  the  question.  In  the  passages  where  St.  Paul 
speaks  of  his  having  seen  Christ,  he  gives  not  the  slightest  hint 
that  this  seeing  was  other  than  the  natural  sensuous  process; 
whereas  elsewhere  he  makes  a  sharp  distinction  between  seeing 
in  spirit  and  in  body.^ 

Our  opponents,  therefore,  have  no  right  to  place  the  appear¬ 
ance  near  Damascus  in  the  same  category  with  the  later  visions 
of  St.  Paul.  Strauss  entirely  overlooks  the  fact,  that  in  1  Cor, 
XV.  8  he  designates-  the  manifestation  of  the  risen  Saviour 
which  was  vouchsafed  to  him  as  the  last  of  all!'  None  of 
his  later  visions  or  revelations  can  be  classed  with  it,  because 
they  were  of  an  entirely  different  kind.  The  appearance  at 
Damascus  was  unique  in  his  memory,  and  he  could  only  class 
it  with  those  vouchsafed  to  the  other  apostles.  If,  then,  it 
was  similar  to  these,  and  dissimilar  to  the  later  ones,  it  was 
no  mere  vision,  hut  an  external  oecurrence,  in  wdiich  the  Lord 
became  bodily  visible. 

'The  same  thing  necessarily  follows  from  the  context  of  these 
passages.  In  1  Cor.  xv.  the  apostle  wishes  to  remove  doubts 
as  to  the  resurrection,  by  pointing  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
as  an  established  fact,  since  the  apostles,  many  brethren,  and 
last  of  all,  he  himself,  had  seen  Him  after  it.  Now  this  seeing 
could  only  be  a  proof  of  the  resurrection  if  it  was  outward  and 
oe-idar,  and  cannot  be  intended  otherwise.  Further  on  St. 
Paul  seeks  to  demonstrate  from  the  same  fact  the  nature  of 
the  resurrection  body,  which  would  be  meaningless  if  the  risen 
Lord  had  not  appeared  in  bodily  form.  So,  too,  with  1  Cor. 
ix.  1.  Against  those  who  maintained  that  he  was  no  real 
apostle,  and  not  called  by  the  Lord,  he  upholds  his  apostleship 
by  an  appeal  to  his  having  personally  met  Christ.  But  the 
apostles  based  their  authority  on  their  personal  intercourse 
with  Christ,  and  their  vocation  by  Him  as  witnesses  of  His 
resurrection.  Thus  the  apostolic  consciousness  of  St.  Paul 

'  The  foi-iner  is  attributed  to  the  vrvtUfiec  as  the  highest  faculty  of  intuition  ; 
the  latter  to  the  vou;,  i.  e.  the  intellect  which  receives  iinijressions  from  the  senses. 


LECT.  VII.] 


THE  niSTOEICAL  TESTIMONIES. 


483 


depends  on  tins  very  point,  that  he  had  seen  the  Saviour 
bodily,  and  not  merely  in  a  vision  (like  Stephen,  Ananias,  and 
others,  who  were  not  apostles). 

What  is  the  result  of  our  investigation  ?  In  an  incon- 
Ustahly  genuine  einstle  we  have  found  an  eye-vntness  to  the  ,fact 
of  Christ's  resurrection ;  St.  Paul  with  his  hodily  eyes  heheld  the 
risen  Lord.  Against  such  clear  testimonies  it  is  of  little  use 
for  our  opponents  to  appeal  to  Gal.  i.  15,  16,  “It  pleased 
God  ...  to  reveal  His  Son  in  me,"  though  Strauss  gathers 
from  these  words  that  Paul  laid  the  chief  stress  in  this  matter 
upon  the  inward  revelation  (p.  302);  and  Schenkel,  on  account 
of  this  passage,  considers  the  manifestation  of  Christ  to  the 
apostle  to  have  been  “  mainly  internal.”  For  though  these 
words  doubtless  apply  primarily  to  the  scene  before  Damascus, 
yet  they  have  a  more  general  meaning  too,  and  include  the 
subsequent  divine  enlightenments,  especially  the  gift  of  the 
Floly  Ghost  after  Ananias  had  laid  on  his  hands.  St.  Paul  is 
here  reviewing  his  whole  life  in  the  light  of  the  divine  act  of 
grace  which  called  him  to  be  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  It 
is  self-evident  that  this  must  have  had  an  inward  effect  upon 
his  heart,  which,  by  divine  enlightenment,  underwent  the  great 
change  through  which  he  attained  to  the  knowledge  and  dis- 
cipleship  of  Christ.  But  this  does  not  exclude  the  external 
aj^pearance ;  on  the  contrary,  the  internal  event  was  only  the 
necessary  consequence  of  the  external  one. 

We  submit,  however,  that  it  is  not  only  an  exegetical,  but 
also  a  psychological  impossibility,  to  comprehend  the  vision  be¬ 
fore  Damascus  as  a  merely  internal  event  taking  place  in  the 
apostle’s  mind.  Our  opponents  cannot  explain  to  us  the  sudden 
and  total  revolution  in  St.  Paul’s  moral  and  religious  conviction 
as  a  purely  natural  mental  process.  The  attempt  to  do  so  has 
brought  them  into  the  greatest  straits,  so  that  their  leader, 
Baur,  after  all  his  efforts,  at  length  confessed  himself  fairly 
beaten.  The  most  zealous  defender  of  this  theory  at  tlie  present 
time  is  Baur’s  sagacious  follower,  Holsten.^  But  his  writings 
clearly  betray  that  the  critical  school  is  driven  to  this  ex¬ 
planation,  not  by  unbiassed  exegetical  researches,  but  only  by 

*  “Die  Christusvision  dcs  Apostel.s  Paulus,”  in  Hilgenfeld’s  fiir 

wissenscliaftiuhe  Ttieolorjlc,  18C1,  Part  nr.  pp.  22I-2S4.  Against  it,  cE 
Beysclilag,  uhi  sup.;  also  Krauss,  Lehre  von  dtr  Offtiiharumj,  pp.  267  et  S3. 


484 


THE  EESURRECTION  OF  CUEIST. 


[lect.  vie 


its  prcsumoositions.  “  Criticism,”  he  says,  “  must 

endeavour  to  comprehend  this  vision  as  an  internal  psycho¬ 
logical  act  of  Paul’s  own  spirit,  because  it  is  subject  to  the  law 
of  finite  causalities  and  the  immanent  development  of  the  human 
spirit.”  Behold  the  cloven  hoof !  It  is  not  the  insufficiency 
or  inadequacy  of  the  records,  nor  is  it  their  isolated  dis¬ 
crepancies,  that  give  offence ;  but  it  is  the  fad  of  Christ’s 
bodily  resurrection  and  actual  appearance  which  is  great  and 
strong  enough  to  overthrow  all  the  pantheistic  and  deistic 
views  of  these  critics.  This  fact  must  be  got  rid  of  at  any 
cost,  because  it  threatens  the  supremacy  of  the  law  of  im¬ 
manent  development ;  or,  in  other  words,  because  the  pan¬ 
theistic  standpoint  will  not  allow  of  anything  supernatural. 
Here,  again,  we  see  how  this  so-called  “  historical  criticism  ’’ 
is  “  in  reality  dogmatic  or  philosophical,  having  for  its  first 
principle  the  dogma  of  Pantheism.”  Furthermore,  wm  see  wdiat 
it  must  cost  to  do  away  with  the  fact  under  consideration.  If 
it  be  only  an  immanent  psychological  act, — and  yet  St.  Paul 
speaks  of  it  as  a  sure  external  fact,  on  wdiich  thenceforth  he 
based  his  existence  and  his  intellect,  his  faith  and  hope,  his 
testimony  and  his  work, — then  he  laboured  under  .a  self-decep¬ 
tion  loMch  rendered  his  whole  life  and  preaching  a  mere  illusion. 
This  Holsten  candidly  confesses.  He  grants  that  criticism 
must  declare  the  actual  basis  of  St.  Paul’s  gospel  to  be  a  delu¬ 
sion,  i.e.  it  converts  the  most  notable  wdtness  and  martyr  for 
the  truth  into  an  apostle  of  error !  This,  and  no  less,  is 
the  price  which  must  be  ‘paid  for  the  denial  of  the  fact  in 
question. 

AYhat,  then,  we  ask  in  astonishment,  can  the  reasons  be 
■which  give  the  critical  school  courage  to  attempt  such  a 
hazardous  feat  ?  Baur  in  his  later  writings'  endeavours  tc 
account  for  this  sudden  change  in  the  convictions  of  St.  Paul 
by  supposing  that  the  narrow-minded,  one-sided  pharisaical 
Judaism  must  at  length  have  worn  itself  out  by  going  to 
extremes,  and  then  have  changed  into  the  contrary.  dTie 
great  achievement  of  Christ’s  death  all  at  once  made  a  mighty 
impression  on  the  mind  of  Saul.  How  else  can  he  have  over¬ 
come  his  Jewish  hatred  to  Christianity  than  by  the  involun¬ 
tary  impulse  of  his  spirit,  which  drove  him  to  meditate  on  that 
death  ?  In  his  mind,  which  was  accustomed  to  more  profound 


LECT.  YII,] 


THE  HISTORICAL  TESTIHONIES. 


485 


thought,  the  idea — so  intolerable  to  a  Jew — of  a  crucified 
J.Iessiah  changed  into  the  contrary,  when  he  considered  that 
that  which  was  riiost  opposed  to  the  sensuous  consciousness 
might,  after  all,  be  true  in  its  deepest  inward  essence.  But 
how  does  Baur  know  that  Saul  was  occupied  with  the  thought 
of  Christ’s  death  just  at  that  time  ?  If  he  ever  were  so,  from 
his  standpoint  he  could  only  regard  it  as  a  divine  judgment. 
And  why  is  the  apostle — at  other  times  so  truthful  and  open 
—here  silent  as  to  the  doubts  which  at  that  time  arose  in  his 
mind  respecting  the  correctness  of  his  pharisaical  standpoint  ? 
And  even  had  a  presentiment  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  at  that 
time  arisen  of  its  own  accord  in  his  understanding,  there  was 
still  a  long  distance  between  the  thought  and  the  practical 
resolve,  which  would  assuredly  have  taken  up  much  time.  Is 
it  usual  that  one  should  break  thus  radically  with  his  past  life, 
and  entirely  give  up  convictions  hitherto  so  deeply  rooted  and 
notably  acted  out,  and  that  he  should  suddenly  go  over  so 
decidedly  to  the  opposite  standpoint ; — and  all  this  as  a  result 
of  spontaneous  mental  action,  without  any  external  solicitation 
or  influence  ?  Would  not  this  be  witlwut  parallel  ?  Later 
on,  Baur  felt  that  this  was  a  psychological  monstrosity ;  for 
in  his  last  work  he  designates  the  conversion  of  St.  Paul  a 
“  wonder,”  a  mysterious  secret,  “  which  no  analysis,  either 
psychological  or  dialectic,  can  clear  up.”  By  this  he  does  not 
mean  that  it  is  a  miracle  in  our  sense  of  the  word,  but  still  he 
confesses  the  inadequacy  of  all  attempts  at  a  natural  psycho¬ 
logical  explanation. 

This,  then,  is  another  portion  of  the  xmexplained  and  in- 
explicaUe  residuum  of  miraculous  facts,  which  proves  the 
futility  of  all  anti-miraculous  theories  as  to  the  origin  of 
Christianity. 

Nor  do  the  explanations  of  Baur’s  disciples  make  the  matter 
clearer.  Holsten  tells  us  that  visionary  seeing  is  only  a 
reproductive  action :  only  that  which  lives  in  the  mind  as  an 
image  or  conception  can  thus  appear.  The  vision  adds  to 
those  elements  which  already  exist  in  the  spirit  a  sensuous 
objectiveness,  by  exciting  the  nervous  li'e,  which  thus  makes 
the  image  appear  sensibly  to  the  outward  eye.  This  is  con¬ 
firmed  by  physiologists.  “  We  may  assert,  that  if  any  higber 
or  lower  order  of  being  is  to  appear  to  us  subjectively  in  this 


4S6 


THE  HESUKRECTION  OF  CHRIST. 


[LECT.  \’II. 


manner,  it  must  first  be  conceived  and  imagined,  and  thus 
impressed  upon  the  senses.”  ^  Tlierefore  Saul,  if  he  experi¬ 
enced  merely  a  natural  ecstatic  vision,  without  a  supernatural 
divine  communication,^  must  in  some  way  or  other  have  re¬ 
ceived  into  his  mind  beforehand  that  which  he  afterwards  saw. 
But  even  Strauss  confesses  that  this  effect  could  not  have 
been  produced  by  “the  excitement  into  which  the  fanatical 
upholder  of  Jewish  traditions  had  been  brought  by  the  threat¬ 
ening  advances  of  Christianity;”  for,  “from  such  emotions  a 
vision  of  Moses  or  Elias  would  have  been  far  more  likely  to 
result  than  an  image  of  Christ”  (p.  303).  He  therefore  lays 
especial  stress  on  the  probability  that  in  his  pharisaical  self- 
rio'hteousness  Saul  had  found  no  enduring  satisfaction.  While 
as  a  ready  dialectician  he  disputed  with  the  Christians,  or 
when  he  broke  into  their  meetings  to  hale  them  to  prison,  and 
saw  not  only  their  sincerity,  but  also  their  tranquil  peace  and 
quiet  joy  in  suffering,  which  put  to  shame  the  peaceless  and 
joyless  fanaticism  of  their  persecutor, — his  present  convictions 
must  have  been  shaken  day  by  day.  Could  it  be  an  erroneous 
teacher  who  had  such  followers  ?  We  must  not  therefore 
“  wonder  if  sometimes,  in  seasons  of  dejection  and  inward  dis¬ 
tress,  he  put  to  himself  the  question,  “  Who  is  in  the  right 
after  all ; — thou,  or  the  crucified  Galilean  whom  these  people 
adore  ?  ”  When  he  had  once  come  thus  far,  his  bodily  and 
mental  peculiarity  would  easily  result  in  an  ecstasy,  in  which 
that  very  Christ,  whom  he  had  hitherto  persecuted  so  passion¬ 
ately,  would  appear  to  him  in  all  the  glory  of  which  His 
followers  spoke,  showing  him  the  wrongness  and  futility  of 
his  course,  and  calling  him  to  enter  His  service  (pp.  303 
and  304). 

This  is  the  explanation  which  Strauss  gives  of  St.  Paul’s 
conversion.  But  neither  the  Acts  nor  the  Epistles  tell  us 
anything  about  “  seasons  of  dejection  ”  or  of  disputations  with 
the  Christians ;  whereas  St.  Paul  clearly  states  that  he  had 
received  the  gospel  of  no  man,  neither  was  taught  it,  but  by 
the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ  (Gal.  i.  12).  These  writings  say 
nothiu"  of  the  image  of  the  risen  Saviour  which  lived  in  Saul 
h^’-iore  that  scene,  or  of  a  faith  in  Jesus  which  had  already 
taken  root  in  his  heart.  On  the  contrary,  they  bear  witness 

*  Joh.  Miiller,  Uch&r  die  phantastischcn  Gesichtseischeinunyen,  p.  62  et  ss. 


LECT.  YII.] 


THE  HISTOrJCAL  TESTLMOXIE3. 


487 


to  the  fact  that  lie  continued  to  rage  in  his  blind  zeal  until  the 
Saviour  met  him,  and  that  this  meeting  viovcd  and  astonished 
him  to  the  highest  degree,  not  that  it  was  interncdly  prepared,  and 
then  of  necessity  resulted  from  the  workings  of  liis  mind. 
The}  do  not  as  much  as  hint  that  he  was  in  any  inward 
uncertainty  as  to  his  conduct  up  to  that  time,  nor  even  that 
the  same  knowledge  had  dawned  upon  him  as  upon  Gamaliel 
(Acts  V.  38,  39):  “If  this  work  ...  be  of  God,  ye  cannot 
overthrow  it.”  The  words  “  Saul,  Saul,  why  persecutest  thou 
me  ?  ”  point,  not  to  inward  doubts,  but  to  fanatical  hatred 
and  zeal;  as  he  himself,  too,  witnesses  (Gal.  i.  13,  14).  The 
psychological  precondition  for  a  vision,  which  can  only  be 
reproductive,  is  wanting  in  St.  Paul.  For  his  mind  contained 
just  tlie  very  opposite  of  what  the  vision  is  supposed  to  have 
reproduced  and  objectivized.  Moreover,  if  his  condition  is 
supposed  to  have  been  that  of  internal  doubt,  it  is  well  to 
remember  that,  in  the  New  Testament,  visions  are  never  aeeorded 
to  douUers  or  enemies  of  the  gospel,  hut  only  to  helicvcrs  ivlmi  in 
ecstasy. 

And  how  about  St.  Paul’s  bodily  constitution  ?  vras  it  such 
as  would  be  conducive  to  a  vision  ?  The  origin  of  visions  in  all 
those  men  who  have  experienced  them,  shows  that  the  vision¬ 
ary,  although  he  may  be  of  sound  mind,  is  invariably  suffer¬ 
ing  from  overstrained  nerves,  fever,  congestion,  or  some  sort  of 
bodily  ailment.^  Hence  the  “  visionary  hypothesis  ”  has  to 
support  itself  with  other  new  and  strange  hypotheses  as  to  the 
bodily  constitution  of  St.  Paul.  The  “  thorn  in  the  flesh  ” 
(2  Gor.  xii.  1)  is  interpreted  by  Strauss  to  mean  “  convulsive, 
and  perhaps  epileptic  (!)  flts  ;  ”  and  he,  as  well  as  Holsten,  con¬ 
cludes  therefrom  that  St.  Paul  was  of  a  “  nervous  tempera¬ 
ment.”  This  conjecture  is  as  ridiculous  as  it  is  undignified,  in 
the  case  of  a  man  who  was  not  only  of  such  sound  and  clear 
intellect,  but  also  capable  of  such  constant  and  severe  bodily 

>  Witness  Mohammed  and  his  morbid  tendency  to  sensual  indulgence  in  later 
years  (Sprenger,  Lehen  u.  Lehre  des  Mohammed,  i.  209) ;  Swedenborg  and  his 
unhappy  attachment  to  young  Polhem  (Sprenger,  ubi  sup.  p.  276);  the  Maid 
of  Orleans  and  her  frequent  fasts,  combined  with  a  regular  diet  similar  to  that  of 
a  strictly  observed  Lent  (Hase,  Neue  Propheten,  p.  88  et  ss.)  ;  and  the  visions 
of  the  bookseller  Nicolai,  in  the  year  1791,  “  when  the  usual  bleeding  and  leeches 
on  account  of  haemorrhoids  were  omitted”  (Job.  Muller,  Phantastische  Gesichlser- 
scheinungen,  pp.  77  et  ss.).  Cf,  Krauss,  uhi  sup.  pp.  274  et  ss. 


483 


THE  EESUREECTION  OF  CUEIST. 


[lECT.  VII. 


exertion  (consider  the  exhausting  apostolic  labour  by  day  and 
the  work  of  his  trade  by  night,  Acts  xviii.  3,  xx.  34  ;  1  Cor. 
iv.  12),  and  wlio  went  on  his  way  with  unbroken  vigour  after 
undergoing  the  most  rigorous  hardships  and  persecutions 
(1  Cor.  iv.  11  ;  2  Cor.  xi.  23-28).  Surely  such  a  man  does 
not  give  one  the  impression  of  a  feeble,  nervous  epileptic. 
Since  his  conversion,  tlie  apostle  feels  free  and  strong  in  the 
Lord ;  shall  we  suppose  that  tliis  effect  was  produced  by  a 
sickness,  by  an  epileptic  fit,  or  nervous  convulsions  ?  Holsten 
draws  our  attention  to  the  fact  that  our  actual  knowledge  of 
the  outer  world  is  in  no  way  increased  by  a  vision.  Was  not 
St.  Paul’s  knowledge  extended  by  that  occurrence  ?  AVas  he 
not  enlightened  with  new  and  fruitful  truths  respecting  him¬ 
self  and  the  world  around  and  above  him  ?  Prom  the  scientific 
investigations  respecting  visions,  Lotze  draws  the  following 
true  conclusion :  “  No  notable  new  wisdom  has  as  yet  pro¬ 
ceeded  from  the  mouth  of  somnambulists  or  the  dreams  of 
ecstadcs  and  visionaries.”  ‘  Can  we  say  the  same  of  that 
appearance  of  Christ  before  Damascus,  in  view  of  the  im¬ 
measurable  new  and  wholesome  effects  which  the  conversion 
of  St.  Paul  had  on  the  history  of  the  Church  and  the  world  ? 

AVe  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  scene  before  Damascus 
is  tiKinting  in  the  chief  characteristics  of  a  vision.  There  is 
neither  the  physical  -prcconclition  in  the  person  concerned  which 
marks  its  reproductive  character,  nor  the  constitutional  precon¬ 
dition  which  pertains  to  its  pathologiccdly  morhid  nature.  The 
critics  use  the  most  arbitrary  means  to  make  way  for  this 
theory,  adapting  history  to  their  own  fancy  in  spite  of  the 
clearest  testimonies.  Again  do  they  expect  us  to  believe 
marvels  far  more  inconceivable  than  the  external  miracles 
related  by  Scripture ;  and  again  our  former  maxim  is  con¬ 
firmed,  that  those  who  seek  to  escape  the  miraculous  fall  into 
absurdities. 

Every  explanation  of  the  appearance  near  Damascus  as  a 
merely  internal  event,  labours  under  the  fundamental  mistake, 
that  it  must  refer  the  conversion  of  St.  Paul  to  the  spontaneous 
activity  of  his  own  spirit,  whereas  at  first  he  could  not  hut  he 
passive  and  receptive,  in  order  afteinvards  to  attain  to  a  living 
acti\’ity  in  Christ.  Not  until  he  had  been  apprehended  hy  Christ 
1  Mcdhinische  Psychologie,  p.  489. 


LECT.  VII.] 


THE  HISTORICAL  TESTIMONIES. 


489 


Jesus  could  lie  press  forward  towards  the  new  mark,  seeking 
to  apprehend  it  himself  (Phil.  iii.  12).  It  was  not  he  wiio 
had  chosen  Christ,  but  Christ  who  had  chosen  and  ordained 
him,  that  he  should  go  and  bring  forth  much  fruit  (John 
XV.  16  ;  Eom.  i.  1;  Gal.  i.  15).  Thenceforth  he  knows  and 
designates  himseli  as  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  not  by  his 
own  will,  but  “  by  the  will  of  God  ”  (2  Cor.  i.  1) ;  called  not 
of  men,  neither  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  God  the 
Father,  wdio  raised  Him  from  the  dead  ”  (Gal.  i.  1). 

We  shall  see  further  on,  that  in  tlie  construction  of  primi¬ 
tive  Christianity,  as  attempted  by  the  critical  school,  we  always 
have  a  beginning  without  a  beginning,  because  everything  is 
already  existing  beforehand.  The  same  is  the  case  with  all 
subjective  explanations  of  the  manifestation  vouchsafed  to  St. 
Paul.  They  are  obliged  to  suppose  that  a  belief  in  Christ 
existed  in  him  before  he  believed,  and  an  image  of  Christ,  such 
as  could  only  be  formed  afterwards,  before  Christ  appeared  to 
him  :  they  make  him  be  converted  while  he  was  still  a 
Pharisee  raging  against  the  Christians.  All  these  attempts 
are  defeated  by  their  psychological  inconceivableness  far  more 
than  by  the  difficulty  of  explaining  the  impression  on  the 
senses  without  an  external  appearance  of  Christ. 

We  revert  to  the  issue  before  raised.  Does  the  appearance 
of  our  Lord  to  St.  Paul  speak  for  or  against  the  attempt  to 
explain  all  His  other  appearances  as  visions,  and  thus  to  deny 
the  reality  of  the  resurrection  ?  ]\Iay  we  not  safely  say  that 
the  endeavour  of  Strauss  to  employ  the  internal  nature  of  this 
event  as  a  handle  to  reduce  all  the  other  manifestations  related 
in  the  Gospels  to  mere  subjective  phenomena,  recoils  upon 
himself  ?  Just  as  the  appearanee  of  the  risen  Saviour  to  St. 
Paul  before  Damascus  can  only  be  conceived  as  extemed  and 
bodily,  so  cdl  the  other  manifestedions  enumereded  by  him  in  1 
Cor.  XV.  must  be  regarded  in  like  manner.  Put  even  were 
the  former  subjective,  the  converse  wmuld  not  follow  with 
certainty,  viz.  that  all  the  manifestations  vouchsafed  to  the*^ 
older  apostles  were  so  too.*  Moreover,  in  comparing  both,  we 
should  not  overlook  the  distinction,  that  before  Damascus 
the  body  of  our  Lord  (about  which,  however,  nothing  is  said) 

'  Tliis  is  correctly  stated  by  Weissacker,  UvfersKchtingen  iiher  d.  evangelisdie 
Geschichte,  p.  570.  Cl.  Keim,  Der  geschichtiidie  Christus,  p.  137. 


490 


THE  EESUIIRECTIOH  OF  CHRIST. 


[lect.  VII. 


was  long  since  fully  glorified  (hence  the  blinding  light) ; 
whereas,  when  appealing  before  the  ascension,  it  was  in  a 
transitional  state. 

But  St.  Paul  is  not  merely  an  immediate  eye-witness  of 
the  resurrection  ;  he  also  testifies  to  it  with  his  person  and 
history.  In  Ms  sudden  iransfonnation,  and  in  his  entire  subse¬ 
quent  life-worli,  he  appears  as  an  incomparably  energetic  and 
joyous  witness  and  martyr  for  the  Christian  faith,  who  con¬ 
stantly  refers  his  preaching  to  an  immediate  vocation  by 
Christ.  Re  himself  is  one  long  living  froof  for  the  objective  fact 
that  the  risen  Saviour  appeared  before  Damascus. 

Phis  leads  ns  from  the  historical  credibility  of  our  records 
— which  was  the  first  part  of  the  proof  demanded  by  Strauss 
— to  the  second,  viz.  that  certain  indubitable  events  cannot  be 
explained  ivithout  having  recourse  to  the  fact  of  the  resurrection. 


III. - COLLAPSE  OF  THE  “  VISIONARY  ”  HYPOTHESIS  IN  CONSE¬ 

QUENCE  OF  INDUBITABLE  CIRCUMSTANCES  AND  FACTS. 

Besides  the  conversion  and  history  of  St.  Paid  already 
alluded  to,  there  is  a  series  of  other  facts,  all  of  which  no 
less  demand  the  bodily  resurrection  of  Christ  as  a  necessary 
precondition.  Such  are  the  belief  of  the  disciples,  and  their 
unanimous  testimony  that  the  resurrection  took  place  on  the 
third  day ;  the  actual  disappearance  of  the  body  of  Jesus  out 
of  the  grave ;  the  entire  ^'evolution  in  the  disciples'  stede  of 
mind  after  the  risen  Saviour  had  appeared  to  them ;  and  last 
but  not  least,  the  world-ioide  effects  proceeding  from  the  resur¬ 
rection.  Let  us  consider  these  a  little  more  closely. 

The  belief  of  the  disciples  in  the  bodily  resurrection  of  our 
Lord  is  confessed  by  the  critical  school ;  and  this  fact  cannot 
he  explained  as  the  result  of  a,  mere  vision.  If  we  picture  to 
ourselves  the  condition  and  consciousness  of  the  disciples  at 
that  time,  we  must  first  ask,  hou- — unless  their  Master 
actually  issued  forth  from  the  grave — could  the  idea  of  the 
resurrection  occur  to  them  f  They  believed,  we  are  told,  in  the 
Messiahship  of  Christ,  and  in  His  victorious  existence  after 
death.  But  why  should  this  belief  take  the  shape  of  a  fact  so 
utterly  unheard  of,  as  that  He  should  shortly  come  forth  again 


LECT.  vil]  failuke  of  the  “  visioxary  ”  hypothesis.  491 


from  the  grave  ?  It  has  been  shoAvn  that  at  that  time  the 
belief  in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  at  the  last  judgment  was 
current  among  the  Jews ;  but  the  notion  of  the  resurrection  of 
a  dead  man,  who  leaves  his  grave  in  a  body  already  transformed 
long  before  the  judgment-day,  was  as  little  thought  of  by  the 
contemporaries  of  Christ  (cf.  John  xi.  24)  as  by  any  of  the  Old 
Testament  wnaters.  This  idea  was  so  foreign  to  the  disciples, 
as  well  as  to  the  Jewish  world  in  general,  that  had  they 
had  visions  of  Christ,  their  only  conclusion  could  have  been 
that  Ilis  soul  was  living  in  heavenly  glory ;  but  never  that 
the  Master  who  had  died  before  their  eyes  had  gone  forth 
from  the  grave  again  alive.  Their  belief  in  the  resurrection  ^ 
was  to  all  intents  and  purposes  quite  a  new  helief.  “  The  Mes¬ 
sianic  expectations  of  the  Jews  contained  no  idea  correspond- 
iim  to  it.”  ^  But  since  it  is  undeniable  that  from  their  first 

o 

public  appearance  the  apostles  preached  of  their  Lord,  who 
had  not  only  been  received  up  into  heaven,  but  who  had  also 
risen,  again  in  body,  we  ask,  how  was  this  new  element  intro¬ 
duced  into  their  view  of  the  Messiah  unless  a  fact  of  their 
indubitable  experience  convinced  them  of  it  ?  Strauss  con¬ 
fesses  that  the  Pharisees  believed  only  in  a  resurrection  at 
the  last  day,  but  adds,  “  There  was  no  difficulty,  from  the  stand¬ 
point  of  Jewish  thought  at  that  time,  in  supposing  that  the 
resurrection  of  some  particularly  holy  man  might  take  place 
earlier  in  an  isolated  instance”  (pp.  303,  304).  The  artifice 
of  supposing  an  exception  in  this  one  case  will  not  help 
Strauss  to  get  over  this  inconvenient  difficulty. 

j\Ioreover,  we  ask,  whence  did  the  disciples  obtain  the’  notion 
of  a  glorified  body  ?  On  other  occasions  when  the  dead  were 
raised,  something  quite  different  took  place,  viz.  a  return  to 
the  present  mortal  body,  but  not  a  transformation  of  this 
mortal  flesh  into  a  glorified  body.  Besides,  our  critics  main¬ 
tain  that  these  raisings  of  the  dead  were  myths  or  deceptions, 
ami  therefore  cannot  have  been  the  source  of  this  belief.  The 
same  is  the  case  with  the  history  of  our  Lord’s  transfiguration, 
which  Strauss  derives  from  the  opinion  of  the  Jewish  Chris¬ 
tians,  that  Moses  was  a  type  of  Christ  (pp.  516  et  ss.).  “The 
belief  in  the  rapture  and  heavenly  life  of  Enoch,  Elijah,  or 
Moses,  was  rather  a  hindrance  than  otherwise  to  the  applica- 

*  Weizsiicker,  uh\  sup.  p.  574. 


492 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST. 


[LECT.  VII. 


tion  of  sncli  notions  to  a  man  of  tlie  present  age,  especially 
one  who  had  been  seen  to  die  ”  (Weizsiicker,  uli  sup.).  Whence, 
then,  could  the  idea  of  a  gloriiied  body,  with  these  apparently 
irreconcilable  attributes  of  sudden  disappearance  and  palpable¬ 
ness,  proceed  ?  Our  opponents  have  not  as  yet  answered  even 
these  preliminary  questions. 

AVith  regard  to  the  psychical  possibility  of  visions,  hallu¬ 
cinations,  or  phantasms,  medical  science  teaches  ns,^  that  in 
consequence  of  a  strong  excitement  of  the  imagination,  and  of 
the  cerebral  activity  thereby  caused,  the  organs  of  sense  may 
be  affected  in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  the  subject  believe 
that  it  hears  or  sees  an  external  object  corresponding  to  the 
internal  impression  thus  produced.  There  are  impressions  on 
the  senses — proceeding  entirely  from  internal  causes,  without 
any  corresponding  external  object — by  which  the  nerves  of 
sense  are  affected  precisely  in  the  same  manner  as  by  an 
external  perception  ;  the  person  who  has  such  impressions  errs 
only  in  referring  the  image  produced  by  them  to  some  outward 
cause.  However,  these  visionaries  themselves  do  not  always 
consider  the  image  they  see  to  be  objective  realities.  But 
though  self-deception  in  consequence  of  a  vision  is  not  im¬ 
possible,  yet  it  must  be  remembered  that  a  vision  is  always 
caused,  in  part  at  least,  by  some  abnormal  condition  of  the 
body.  And  how  soon  must  a  subjective  imccge  of  this  hind 
vanish  before  any  attempt  at  definite  personal  intercourse,  accom¬ 
panied  by'  conversation  and  toiicli  ! 

Some  upholders  of  the  “  visionary  ”  hypothesis,  without 
giving  up  the  subjective  character  of  these  appearances,  are 
willing  to  grant  that  influences  without  or  from  above — “  a 
personal  working  of  the  departed  spirit  of  Christ  upon  His 
disciples  — may  have  helped  to  produce  them.  Is  this  any 
more  conceivable  than  an  appearance  of  the  risen  Saviour 
Himself  ?  Or  is  a  vision  thus  magically  produced  within  the 
disciples  more  comprehensible  than  the  resurrection  ?  Are 
not  words  and  sounds  (if  they  do  not  proceed  from  an  illu¬ 
sion),  without  an  actual  appearance,  more  marvellous  than  the 
appearance  itself?  Do  such  explanations  carry  us  a  step 
beyond  the  miraculous  ?  They  are  but  one  more  proof  of 

*  Cf.  among  others.  Job.  Miiller,  Lelirhuch  der  Pliysiologie,  voL  ii.  pp.  563 
et  as. 


LECT.  Vll.]  FAILURE  OF  THE  “  VISIO^TAEY  ”  HYPOTHESIS.  493  * 

Eothe’s  maxim,  that  “  Avithout  miracles  the  divine  revelation 
must  infallibly  degenerate  into  magic.” 

Our  opponents  are  compelled  further  to  suppose  that  the 
passionate  imagination  of  the  disciples  stretched  out  its  feelers 
after  their  indispensable  Master.  Instead  of  this,  we  see  that 
on  each  occasion  He  appears  to  His  followers  quite  unex- 
qjcctedly ;  so  much  so,  that  at  first  they  will  not  believe,  and 
He  has  to  rebuke  their  unbelief.  From  this  it  is  clear  that 
they  were  not  prepared  for  the  immediate  reappearance  of 
Jesns,  especially  in  the  shape  of  a  resurrection  from  the  dead. 
Here  the  losychological  'precondition  of  visions  is  wanting.  The 
deep  dejection  on  account  of  their  Master’s  shameful  death 
could  scarcely  give  wings  to  a  new  and  joyous  faith.  We  see 
the  poor  shepherdless  sheep  in  fear  of  the  Jews,  in  doubts 
and  conflicts  respecting  their  Messianic  hopes,  in  perplexity 
as  to  the  future.  These  are  not  the  frames  of  mind  from 
which  ecstatic  visions  might  be  expected  to  proceed,  but 
rather  the  contrary.  For  in  other  parts  of  the  Hew  Testament 
we  see  visions  come  upon  those  who  are  seeking  for  a  deeper 
knowledge  of  God  by  means  of  tranquil  contemplation,  still 
communion,  firm  faith,  and  earnest  prayer  and  fasting. 

And  finally,  the  mental  and  physical  impossibility  of  visions 
by  so  many  'people  at  once.  Critics  may  talk  of  a  chain  of 
spiritual  sympathy  which  can  hind  down  whole  assemblies  at 
once.  But  in  the  Hew  Testament,  visions  presuppose  a  certain 
moral  and  religious  effort  and  frame  of  mind  in  the  individual 
who  has  them,  and  cannot  be  shown  to  be  infectious.”  In 
this  case,  too,  there  would  always  be  one  who  began  and  drew 
the  others  after  him ;  whereas,  in  various  appearances  of  our 
Lord,  many,  ay  hundreds,  at  once  and  simultaneously  perceived 
Him.  We  do  not  deny  that  science  can  tell  us  of  cases  in 
which  visions  were  seen  by  whole  assemblies  at  once  ;  but 
where  this  is  the  case,  it  has  always  been  accompanied  by  a 
'inorlid  excitement  of  the  mental  life,  as  well  as  by  a  morbid 
bodily  condition,  especially  by  nervous  affections.  How  even 
if  one  or  several  of  the  discij)les  had  been  in  this  morbid  state, 
we  should  by  no  means  be  justified  in  concluding  that  cdl 
were  so.  They  were  surely  men  of  most  varied  temperament 
and  constitution.  And  yet  one  after  another  is  supposed  to 
have  fallen  into  this  morbid  condition;  not  only  the  excited 


494 


THE  EESUJIEECTION  OF  CHKIST. 


[LECT.  VII. 


women,  but  even  Peter,  that  strong  and  liardy  fisherman  who 
was  assuredly  as  far  from  nervousness  as  any  one, — James, — 
the  two  on  their  wav  to  Emmaus,  and  so  on  down  to  the  sober 
doubting  Thomas, — ay,  all  eleven  at  once,  and  even  more  than 
five  hundred  brethren  together.  All  of  these  are  supposed 
suddenly  to  have  fallen  into  the  same  self-deception,  and  that, 
be  it  remarked,  at  the  most  different  times  and  places,  and 
during  the  most  varied  occupations  (mourning  by  the  grave, 
in  conversation  by  the  wayside,  in  the  confidential  circle  of 
friends,  at  work  on  the  lake),  in  which  their  frames  of  mind 
must  assuredly  have  been  very  varied,  and  their  internal  ten¬ 
dency  to  visions  most  uneven.  This  latter  point  especially  is 
important  in  considering  the  psychological  possibility  of  such 
simultaneous  visions. 

And  could  they  all  of  them  have  agreed  to  announce  these 
visions  to  the  world  as  bodily  appearances  of  the  risen  Christ  ? 
Or  had  they  done  so,  could  it  have  been  pure  self-deception 
and  not  intentional  deceit  ?  Surely  some  one.  or  other  of  them 
must  afterwards  seriously  have  asked  himself  whether  the 
image  that  he  had  seen  was  a  reality.  Schleiermacher  says 
most  truly :  “  Whoever  supposes  that  the  disciples  deceived 
themselves  and  mistook  the  internal  for  the  external,  accuses 
them  of  such  mental  weakness  as  must  invalidate  their  entire 
testimony  concerning  Christ,  and  make  it  appear  as  though 
Christ  Himself,  when  He  chose  such  witnesses,  did  not  know 
wiiatwas  in  man  (John  ii.  25).  Or  if  He  Himself  had  willed 
and  ordained  that  they  sliould  mistake  inward  appearances  for 
outward  perceptions.  He  wmuld  have  been  the  author  ©f  error, 
and  all  moral  ideas  would  be  confounded  if  this  were  com¬ 
patible  with  His  high  dignity.” 

Here  we  must  again  refer  to  the  great  distinction  bcivxen  the 
ogipcaranccs  of  the  risen  Saviour  and  the  real  visions  related  in 
the  Ner.v  Testament.  How  entirely  different  was  the  vision  of 
dying  Stephen,  who  saw  Jesus  in  heaven,  and  not  upon  earth  ! 
how  different  the  vision  of  St.  Peter,  who  was  “  in  a  trance  ” 
(Acts  X.  10),  and  did  not  see  Jesus  at  all!  how  different  the 
ecstatic  condition  in  which  the  early  Christians  spoke  in 
ditferent  tongues,  but  did  not  see  anything  I  how  different,  as 
we  saw,  the  visionary  trance  of  St.  Paul !  (2  Cor.  xii.)  The 
visions  of  the  Lord”  mentioned  here  are  not  “  biought  into 


LECT.  VII.]  FAILURE  OF  THE  “VISIONARY  ”  HYIOTIIESIS.  495 


any  connection  whatever  with  appearances  of  the  risen  Christ  ” 
(Keiin),  either  by  St.  Paul  or  by  his  opponents.  If,  then,  the 
New  Testament  writers  well  know  what  visions  and  ecstatic 
conditions  are,  why  do  they  always  depict  the  appearances 
of  Christ  quite  differently  ?  why  do  they  never  say  of  the 
disciples,  to  whom  these  were  vouchsafed,  that  they  “  fell  into  ^ 
a  trance  ”  ?  Clearly,  because  the  early  Church  considered 
those  appearances  as  distinct  and  separate  from  the  later 
visions. 

Hence  it  is  not  possible  to  assume  that  those  later  visions 
■were  a  continuation  of  the  first  appearances  of  Christ.  But  if 
the  latter  soon  ceased,  a  new  difliculty  arises  for  the  visionary 
hypothesis  (cf.  Keim,  ubi  suix  pp.  136  et  ss.).  JVhy  should  ^ 
these  visions  of  Christ  have  lasted  only  for  a  few  weehs  and  no 
lonycr  ?  “  If  the  visions  passed  like  electric  shocks  through 

rank  and  file,  through  the  twelve  and  the  five  hundred  ;  if  they 
continued  day  by  day  and  week  by  week ;  then  psychological 
science  would  teach  us  to  expect  an  uninterrupted  communica¬ 
tion  of  these  impulses, — a  continuous  intensification  of  mutual 
infection  in  the  great  vibrating  body, — an  indolent  life  of 
visionary  self-gratification  in  imaginary  intercourse  with  the 
indispensable  Master;  but  not  a  diminution,  stoppage,  and 
transition  to  healtliy  energy.”  The  enigma  would  remain  to 
be  solved,  how  the  Church  coidd  so  quicldy  sober  clown  from  her 
visionary  condition ;  since  thus  much  at  least  is  certain,  that 
she  by  no  means  boasted  herself  of  continued  appearances  of 
her  risen  Lord. 

From  all  this  we  see  how  little  the  belief  of  the  disciples 
in  the  resurrection  can  be  explained  by  means  of  visions,  and 
how  little  likelihood,  or  even  possibility  there  is,  psychologi¬ 
cally  speaking,  in  their  case  for  the  development  of  visionary 
conditions  of  mind  or  body.  But  there  are  still  more  import¬ 
ant  circumstances  wdiich  cannot  be  explained  except  by  the 
fact  of  Christ’s  bodily  resurrection. 

We  have  seen  that  all  the  biblical  accounts  agree  in  stating 
that  the  Lord  arose  “on  the  third  dayh  Strauss  himself  feels^ 
(p.  316)  that  it  is  hard  to  assign  an  unhistorical  origin  to  this 
definite  date.  For  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  resurrection 
must  fiom  the  very  beginning  have  been  regarded  by  the 
disciples  as  an  event  which  took  place  on  the  third  day  ;  for 


496 


THE  EESUREECTION  OF  CHRIST. 


[lECT,  VII. 


we  find  in  the  Christian  observance  of  Sunday  a  liturgical  fruit 
of  this  belief,  and  one  which  can  be  proved  to  have  been  extant 
as  early  as  the  apostolic  age.  Hence  the  visions,  too,  must 
have  begun  on  tlie  third  day.  Strauss  is  well  aware  that  the 
development  of  a  visionary  condition  absolutely  demands  a  much 
lo7iger  space  of  time  than  a  dap  and  a  half,  after  which  short 
period  the  violent  death  of  Jesus  was  in  fresh  remembrance. 
So  he  tries,  as  we  saw,  to  get  out  of  the  difficulty  by  saying 
that  St.  Paul  tells  us  that  Christ  rose  on  the  third  day,  but  not 
that  He  appeared  then.  But  the  two  cannot  be  separated. 
How  could  the  disciples  know  that  Jesus  rose  on  the  third 
day  if  He  did  not  then  appear  to  them,  or  seem  to  do  so  ? 
Ilad  the  visions,  as  Strauss  maintains,  not  begun  till  later 
on  in  Galilee,  what  reason  could  the  disciples  have  had  for 
fixing  the  third  day  as  the  date  of  the  resurrection  ?  It  could 
not  have  been  in  order  that  Christ’s  former  prophecy  might 
be  fulfilled,  for  Strauss  does  not  recognise  prophecies.  And 
assuredly  they  would  have  been  far  more  likely  to  change  the 
prophecy  according  to  its  fulfilment  than  vice  versa.  In  these 
straits  Strauss  has  recourse  to  a  desperate  evasion.  He  says 
that  the  third  day  “  would  seem  in  a  measure  to  have  been 
the  proverbial  designation  of  a  short  time,  meaning  that  a 
matter  should  be  carried  through  without  impediment  ”  (p. 
317),  i.e.  it  means  “after  some  time.”  This  is  a  discovery 
tor  which  Strauss  may  claim  the  sole  credit,  since  there  is  no 
trace  of  it  either  in  the  Old  or  Hew  Testament.  Por  Hosea 
vi.  2  is  a  typical  prophecy  which  was  fulfilled,  or  began  to  be 
fulfilled,  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ  on  the  third  day ;  and 
in  Luke  xiii.  32,  the  true  rendering  is  not  “the  third  day  I 
shcdl  be  perfected,  ”  but,  “  the  third  day  I  shall  finish f  viz.  my 
work  in  this  region,  and  is  to  be  taken  literally.  . 

Such  subterfuges  are  vain.  Even  a  critic  like  Hilgenfeld 
has  lately  confessed  that  the  one  distinct  and  unanimous 
testimony  for  “the  third  day  ”  is,  for  the  reasons  above  stated, 
of  itself  sufficient  to  overthrow  the  visionary  hypothesis.  We 
have  already  seen  how  untenable  and  arbitrary  are  the  attempts 
of  Strauss,  by  means  of  wresting  the  biblical  accounts,  to  show 
that  the  first  appearances  of  the  risen  Saviour  took  place  in 
Galilee.  If  the  testimony  for  the  third  day  is  sure,  then  it  is 
clear  that  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  could  only  have  arisen 


LECT.  vn.]  FAILURE  Of  THE  “  VISIOXAEY  ”  HYrOTIIESIS.  '497 


at  Jerusalem,  and  tliat  the  first  appearances  must  have  taken 
place  there.  For  it  is  self-evident  tliat  the  disciples  could 
not  have  been  in  Galilee  as  early  as  the  third  day,  even  had 
the  intervening  day  not  been  a  Sabbath.  Therefore  Strauss 
supposes  the  disciples  to  have  been  in  Jerusalem  on  that 
day. 

But  if  Jerusalem  became  the  cradle  of  belief  in  the  resurrec¬ 
tion  so  soon  after  the  death  of  Christ,  what  vjould  have  hecn 
easier  for  the  enemies,  when  this  was  announced  as  a  fact  to  the 
people,  than  to  eonfute  the  apostles  hy  exhuming  the  eorpse  of 
their  Master  ? 

This  is  another  great  difficulty  which  lies  in  the  way  of  our 
opponents:  TVhat  heeame  of  the  body  of  Jesus?  The  visionary  ^ 
hypothesis  eannot  explain  the  fact  of  the  empty  grave,  vrhich  even 
Schenkel  acknowledges  as  undeniable.  Strauss  is  of  opinion 
that  when,  at  the  feast  of  Pentecost,  Christ  was  announced  as 
having  risen,  neither  His  followers  nor  the  Jews  probably 
knew  any  longer  which  was  the  place  of  His  burial,  nor  would 
they,  on  account  of  their  horror  of  corpses,  feel  inclined  to 
search  after  the  body.  “  Jesus  had  perhaps  been  hastily  in¬ 
terred,  along  with  others  who  had  suffered  capital  punishment, 
in  some  dishonourable  spot;  and  when  the  apostles  after  a 
considerable  time  appeared  with  the  announcement  that  he 
had  risen,  it  must  have  been  difficult  for  their  opponents  to 
produce  his  corpse  in  a  condition  recognisable  enough  to  afford 
proofs  against  them  ”  (p.  3 1 2).  If  the  resurrection,  we 
answer,  had  been  only  a  visionary  deception,  the  evangelists 
would  certainly  have  been  obliged  to  take  care  that  Jesus 
should,  appear  to  have  been  buried  in  some  unknown  spot,  in 
order  that  a  search  should  be  difficult.  But  what  do  they 
relate  ?  That  Jesus  was  openly  and  honourably  buried  in  a 
place  quite  near  to  Golgotha,  well  known  not  only  to  the 
disciples,  but  to  the  Jewish  councillors  and  the  Eoman  magis¬ 
trates  ;  and  even  that  the  Sanhedrim  had  the  grave  sealed, 
and  put  a  watch  before  it,  so  that  the  burial-place  of  “  the 
kirm  of.  the  Jews  ”  must  doubtless  have  been  known  through- 
out  the  town.  Shall  we  then,  it  has' been  well  said,  suppose 
that  none  of  Christ's  folloivers,  not  even  the  possessor  of  the 
garden,  was  so  distrustful  or  eurious  as  to  go  to  look  cd  the  grave 
himself,  when  the  women  told  of  the  appearance  of  Jesus? 


498 


THE  EESUREECTION  OF  CUEIST. 


[LECT.  VII. 


Shall  we  imagine  that  no  one  out  of  the  great  number  of  His 
enemies  icas  prucleoit  enouejh  to  examine  the  tomb,  and  have  the 
corpse,  which  assuredly  would  have  still  been  in  some  degree 
recognisable  even  after  weeks,  broufyht  out,  since  it  must  have 
been  of  the  utmost  importance  to  them  openly  to  convict 
Christ’s  followers  of  a  falsehood  ;  while,  as  regards  their  horror 
of  corpses,  there  were  doubtless  enough  Gentile  menials  in 
Jerusalem  whom  they  could  have  employed  ?  Instead  of  this, 
we  are  told  that  they  preferred  to  confess  the  fact  of  the  gi'ave 
being  found  empt}'',  in  order  to  saddle  the  disciples  with  the 
accusation  of  stealing  the  corpse  !  The  “  criticism  ”  wdiich  can 
make  such  statements  as  these,  itself  needs  criticising  very 
much. 

Others  have  thought  to  evade  the  question  by  supposing 
that  some  unknown  adorer  of  Christ  took  away  the  corpse 
without  the  knowledge  of  the  apostles, — tluis  basing  this 
world-wide  and  world-ruling  belief  on  an  accident  or  a  fraud  ! 
Are  not  such  fancies  as  these  signs  that  our  critics  are  in 
despair  ;  that,  in  the  consciousness  of  having  exhausted  all  tlieir 
sagacity  in  textual  criticism,  in  psychology,  and  philosbphy, 
on  the  vain  attempt  to  overturn  the  rock  of  our  Christian  faith, 
they  are  now  reduced  to  substituting  the  windiest  hypotheses 
for  the  historical  testimonies  wliich  they  reject  ?  The  empty, 
open  tomb,  with  its  loud  question :  AVhere  is  Ilis  body  ?  puts 
all  their  attempts  to  shame. 

Add  to  all  these  grounds  for  the  reality  of  our  Lord’s 
resurrection  the  last  and  Aveightiest,  viz.  the  immeasurable  effect 
exercised  by  this  belief  on  the  disciples  and  on  the  world.  Take, 
first  of  all,  the  sudden  revolution  in  the  frame  of  mind  and,  in 
the  behaviour  of  the  disciples,  which  can  no  more  be  explained 
as  the  result  of  visions  in  their  case  than  in  that  of  St.  Paul. 
Before  the  resurrection  we  see  the  disciples  so  fearful ;  they 
scatter  when  the  Master  is  bound ;  the  most  courageous  of 
them  denies  his  Lord  before  a  servant-girl ;  only  secretly  do 
they  dare  to  meet  with  “  doors  shut  for  fear  of  the  Jews  — ■ 
and  afterwards,  though  holding  their  lives  in  their  hands,  they 
step  forward  so  fearles5?ly  before  the  whole  nation,  before  the 
judges  and  murderers  of  their  IMaster,  and  preach  His  resurrec¬ 
tion  with  a  joyousness  that  cannot  be  intimidated  by  any 
threats  or  ill-usage.  Beforehand,  they  are  so  shaken  and 


LECT.  YII.]  FAILUKE  OF  THE  “  YISIONAEY  ”  IIYrOTIIESIS.  499 


broken  down  by  the  sudden  death  of  their  Messiah,  that  their 
hope  in  Him  as  the  Eedeenier  of  Israel  is  vanished,  their  own 
future  and  that  of  their  faith  enveloped  in  impenetrable  dark¬ 
ness  ;  find  suddenly  a  light  of  ho]ae  is  kindled  in  them  which 
even  the  most  violent  storm  of  persecution  cannot  extinguish. 
All  at  once  they  are  clearly  conscious  of  their  vocation  ;  an 
intrepid,  joyous  faith,  a  holy  zeal,  a  consciousness  ot  victory, 
fills  their  hearts,  and  impels  them  to  go  to  Jews  and  Gentiles 
to  conquer  the  world  for  their  Master,  and  upholds  and  conr- 
forts  them  in  tribulation  and  death.  And  this  new  faith  finds 
an  entrance  everywhere ;  only  becomes  stronger  and  more 
firmly  rooted  through  opposition  and  persecution ;  can  be 
damped  by  no  power,  either  of  the  sword  or  of  science ;  in  a 
stupendous  revolution  it  conquers  the  world,  and  regenerates  it 
morally  and  spiritually ;  it  embodies  itself  in  a  living  and 
growing  Church  which  has  penetrated  to  all  nations,  and  al¬ 
ready  lasted  for  eighteen  centuries.  Are,  %ve,  then,  to  believe  that 
the  impulse  to  these  immeasurable  effects  proceeded  from  visions 
and  nervous  convulsions ;  from  the  visionary  or  epileptic  con¬ 
stitution  of  hysterical  women  and  weak-nerved  men  ;  that  the 
disciples  derived  the  clear  knowledge  of  their  extensive  task 
from  a  fleeting  vision;  that  the  light  of  the  Christian  Church, 
the  sobriety  and  truth  of  its  spirit,  and  the  earnestness  of  its 
moral  energy,  came  from  over-excited  nerves  ;  ay,  that  the 
moral  regeneration  of  the  world  proceeding  therefrom  had  its 
origin  in  error  and  sclf-decn)tion  I  Are  we  to  believe  that  the 
great  Fact  which  has  afforded  a  sufficient  explanation  of  the 
history  of  the  Church  and  the  develojmient  of  the  world  up  to 
this  present  moment,  in  the  end  dwindles  down  to  the  phan¬ 
toms  of  a  diseased  imagination  or  “  la  passion  d’une  hallu- 
cince  ”  ?  Believe  that  who  will ;  call  it  what  you  please,  only 
not  rational  or  natural ;  and  be  sure  that  it  will  never  stand 
before  the  judgment-seat  of  history  or  of  conscience. 

Xo  ;  the  enormous  loeight  oj  these  historiced  effects  produced  by 
the  belief  in  the  resurrection,  must  crush  every  effort  to  derive  it 
from  anything  but  the  fact  that  Jesus  Christ,  the  great  Redeemer 
of  the  loorld,  axtucdly  did  burst  the  bonds  of  decdh  by  rising  on 
thed  Easter  morning.  Who  is  unacquainted  with  the  law  of 
the  sufficing  reason  ?  In  view  of  the  facts  enumerated,  we 
must  say  that,  if  anywhere,  this  law  is  lost  sight  of  in  the 


500 


THE  EESUHRECTION  OF  CHRIST. 


[LECT.  VII, 


visionary  hypothesis.  Proceeding,  as  it  does,  from  a  desperate 
desire  to  get  rid  of  the  miraculous  at  any  price,  this,  theory 
shares  the  fate  which  we  have  seen  pertains  to  every  such 
undertaking.  Wishing  to  do  away  with  the  supernatural,  it 
falls  into  the  unnatural,  unhistorical,  irrational.  For  eighteen 
hundred  years  Christ’s  body,  the  Church,  has  been  living  and 
conquering  ;  and  should  her  Head  not  he  fully  living,  hut  half 
remained  in  death  ?  Of  a  truth,  unbelief  believes  what  is 
i^iost  incredible. 

What,  then,  is  tlia  result  of  our  investigation  ?  It  is  this : 
that  both  the  proofs  demanded  by  Strauss  to  substantiate  the 
fact  of  the  resurrection  are  most  fully  furnished,  viz.  the  his- 
toriced  credibility  of  the  records,  and  the  necessity  of  this  event  in 
order  to  explain  other  indubitably  certain  facts.  The  historical 
testimonies  for  the  resurrection  as  an  outward  fact  are  firmly 
established  ;  they  are  equal  to  anything  which  may  be  de¬ 
manded  of  a  sure  record  of  ancient  times  ;  and,  as  regards  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  they  are  unimpugned  by  any  criticism, 
nor  can  they  possibly  be  interpreted  as  mere  internal  events. 
And  a  series  of  indubitable  events  subsequent  to  the  death  of 
Christ, — facts  of  spiritual  and  external  experience  in  the  history 
of  the  apostles ;  indeed,  the  entire  development  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Church, — all  these  form  an  inexplicable  enigma  without 
the  fact  of  the  resurrection. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  task  that  Strauss  has  set  himself — 
to  make  us  comprehend  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  without 
miracles,  or  else  to  give  up  his  entire  undertaking  as  a  failure 
— has  in  no  case  been  accomplished  without  open  violence 
and  arbitrariness.  His  explanatory  attempts,  as  locll  as  these  of 
cdl  other  anti-miraculous  critics,  are  entangled  in  an  endless 
chain  of  enigmas  and  difficulties.  Difficulties  excgcticcd :  there 
is  the  clear  testimony  of  St.  Paul,  and  the  great  distinction 
made  by  New  Testament  writers  between  the  description  of 
visions  and  the  narratives  of  our  Lord’s  appearances.  Diffi¬ 
culties  psychologiccd :  all  likelihood  is  wanting  for  the  supposi¬ 
tion  that  so  many  and  such  differently  constituted  persons 
should,  even  by  hundreds  at  a  time,  have  been  simultaneously 
predisposed  to  see  visions  ;  there  is  the  sudden  and  thorough 
change  in  the  disciples’  frame  of  mind,  especially,  too,  the 
sudden  conversion  of  St.  Paul ;  and  finally,  the  speedy  cessation 


LECT.  vie]  failure  OF  THE  “VISIONARY”  EVrOTIIESIS. 


501 


of  our  Lord’s  appearances.  Difficulties  dogmatical:  arising 
from  the  question,  Whence  should  the  idea  of  an  isolated 
individual  resurrection,  hitherto  foreign  to  their  belief,  arise 
in  the  minds  of  the  disciples  ?  Difficulties  chronolog iced : 
■ananimous  historical  evidence  points  to  “  the  third  day,”  and 
this  leaves  no  space  for  the  gradual  development  of  visions,  or 
for  the  translocation  of  the  first  appearances  to  Galilee.  Diffi¬ 
culties  topograpliiccd  :  there,  in  a  well-known  spot,  stands  the 
empty  tomb,  with  its  loud  question.  Where  is  the  body  ? 
which  neither  Jew  nor  Eoman  attempts  to  answer,  though 
investigation  would  have  been  ea.sy.  Difficulties  historiced : 
there  is  the  firm  and  immovable  belief  of  the  disciples  in  their 
Lord’s  resurrection,  their  preaching  so  full  of  victorious  joy 
and  martyr's  courage,  which  not  even  their  most  bitter  enemies 
dare  on  this  point  to  gainsay ;  there  is  the  Christian  Sunday, 
a  continual  celebration  of  the  first  Easter  victory  ;  there  is  the 
Christian  Church,  founded  and  victoriously  growing  on  the 
rock  of  her  belief  in  the  crucified  and  risen  Saviour.  And 
finally,  difficulties  moved  :  there  is  the  entire  moral  regenera¬ 
tion  of  the  world  which  proceeded  from  the  preaching  of  the 
apostles  ;  there  we  see  the  kingdom  of  truth  coming,  and  are 
told  to  believe,  as  has  been  well  said,  that  at  first  it  was 
false,  afterwards  it  constantly  became  more  true,  and  at  length 
“  developed  ”  into  the  sublimest  truth  ! 

The  critic  is  not  yet  born  who  could  overcome  all  these 
obstacles.  AVhere  the  supernatural  so  palpably  intrudes  into 
history  as  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  reason  would  be  far 
more  prudent,  humbly  and  thankfully  to  mount  this  rock 
which  “  stands  as  the  mountain  of  God,”  and  thus  continuously 
to  increase  her  range  of  vision,  than  to  expose  one  weak  point 
after  another  by  making  futile  efforts  to  undermine  it. 

A  word  to  my  readers  !  After  the  foregoing  investigation, 
I  may  well  utter  the  conclusion,  that  if  any  one  among  you 
imagines  himself  to  be  justified  in  his  unbelief  by  the  criticism 
of  Strauss  or  Baur,  he  is  greatly  deceived.  In  his  earlier  days 
(when  still  a  believer  in  the  Bible),  Baur  once  said,  “As 
assuredly  as  the  origin  of  the  Christian  Church  can  only  be 
accounted  for  by  a  firm  belief  in  the  risen  Saviour,  so  certain 
is  it  that  this  belief  in  its  turn  could  rest  upon  no  other 
ground  than  that  of  the  historical  trutii  of  Christ’s  resurrcc- 


THE  EESUllEECTION  OF  CUEIST. 


502 


[lect.  vil 


tion ^  nor  did  all  tlie  labours  of  Baur’s  later  years  suffice  to 
overthrow  this  position. 

But  in  addition  to  these  more  negative  grounds  of  defence, 
consider,  too,  the  loositive  countcr'proofs  of  the  ncccssltn  of  fh& 
resurrection, — this  most  comforting  and  hope-inspiring  fact  in 
the  whole  history  of  humanity ;  proofs  which  are  not  only  of  a 
historical,  hut  also  of  a  dogmatic  nature.  They  proceed,  as  we 
hinted  at  the  outset,  from  the  nature  of  Christ’s  Person.  As 
the  sinless  and  holy  Son  of  God,  He  could  not  see  corruption  ; 
death  could  not  bind  Him  continuously,  since  He  had  life  in 
Himself ;  and  in  laying  down  His  life  He  manifested  Himself 
as  eternal  Love,  which  must  live  eternally  because  itself  is  life. 
They  proceed  from  the  omnipotence  and  justice  of  the  divine 
government,  which  would  have  been  annihilated  had  it  left 
the  Holy  One  of  God — in  whose  crucifixion  sin  and  the  power 
of  darkness  had  celebrated  their  greatest  triumph — to  corrupt 
in  the  grave ;  had  it  not  crowned  Him,  whb  for  our  sakes  was 
forsaken  on  the  cross,  with  glory  and  honour.  They  proceed 
from  the  luork  of  Christ,  the  crown  of  which  would  be  wantiim 
unless  throuo’h  His  resurrection  He  confirmed  His  death  as 

o 

being  a  sacrifice  for  us,  and  not  for  Himself,  and  thereby  over¬ 
came  the  last  enemy — even  death.  They  proceed  from  the 
presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  Christ  imparts,  and  sends  in 
consequence  of  His  resurrection  and  ascension  (John  xv.  26, 
XX.  22  ;  Acts  ii.  33)  ;  and  fronr  the  personal  experience  of 
believers,  who  through  that  same  Holy  Ghost  constantly  expe¬ 
rience  the  sanctifying  and  beatific  influences  of  the  Savioivr’s 
resurrection-life  (Bom.  vi.  4 ;  Col.  ii.  1 2  et  ss.,  iii.  1  et  ss.  : 

1  Pet.  i.  3)  ;  because  the  Lord  is  not  only  the  risen  One,  but 
also  the  Besurrection  and  the  Life  (Johir  xi.  25).  They  pro¬ 
ceed  from  i\iQfnternal  coherence  in  the  history  of  God’s  kingdom, 
— for  with  the  resurrection  of  Christ  the  second  spiritual  period 
of  man’s  history  begins,  which  will  be  folly  realized  at  the  end 
of  this  age, — and  hence,  too,  from  the  idea  of  the  ivorld's  con¬ 
summation  ;  the  resurrection  and  transformation  of  Christ  beim; 
the  divine  pledge  of  that  general  resurrection  and  transforma¬ 
tion  in  which,  as  its  aim  and  end,  the  history  of  mankind,  as 
well  as  that  of  nature,  is  eventually  to  be  merged,  when  this  ’ 
earthly  sphere  shall  be  transformed  into  a  heavenly.  Con- 
’  Bengel’s  Archivfiir  Thcologie,  vol.  ii.  part  3,  p.  715. 


LECT.  Y]I.]  FAILURE  OF  THE  “  VISIOXARY  ”  HYrOTIIESIS.  503 

sidcr,  I  pray  yon,  all  these  grounds  together,  and  tlien  I  think 
that  the  question  of  the  resurrection  on  which  your  whole 
belief  and  your  whole  hope  depends,  will  no  longer  cause  you 
doubts. 

Tlie  enemies  of  Jesus  once  placed  a  watch  at  His  grave, 
that  the  body  might  not  be  stolen.  Now,  we  ourselves  stand 
before  His  empty  tomb,  to  guard  it  with  these  arguments,  and 
with  the  experimental  proof  of  His  resurrection-power  working 
in  our  hearts,  that  none  may  again  bury  the  Lord  of  glory. 

Now  if  the  resurrection  be  an  established  fact,  we  must 
remember  that,  according  to  Strauss’  own  confession,  his  entire 
undertaking  is  a  failure,  and  the  inadeqiiacy  of  the  purely 
natural  human  view  of  the  life  of  Christ  is  proved  (p.  288). 
For  if  this  great  central  miracle  of  the  resurrection  stand  firm, 
so  does  all  that  precedes  and  follows  it :  the  miraculous  deeds 
of  Christ,  the  truth  of  His  redeeming  death.  His  ascension  and 
the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  yes,  even  His  miraculous 
birth  and  divine  Sonship ;  for  if  the  consummation  of.  His  life 
were  such  a  miracle,  may  we  not  fairly  conclude  that  its 
beginning  was  also  miraculous  ?  By  raising  Christ  from  the 
dead,  God  Himself  has  testified  and  confirmed  that  He  is  what 
the  Church  has  ever  maintained  and  worshipped — His  only- 
begotten  Son.  Thus  our  belief  in  Him  is,  in  every  essential 
particular,  shielded  against  the  attacks  of  criticism  and 
mythicism,  and  those  words  remain  true  in  which  the  Lord 
has  comprehended  the  entire  miraculous  history  of  His 
Church:  “Fear  not;  I  am  the  First  and  the  Last:  I  am  He 
that  liveth,  and  was  dead  ;  and,  behold,  I  am  alive  for  ever¬ 
more  ”  (Ftev.  i.  1 7  and  1 8). 


EIGHTH  LECTUEE. 


THE  MODERN  CRITICAL  THEORY  OF  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY. 

IN  the  preceding  Lecture  we  adduced  the  origin  of  the 
Christian  Church,  and  the  moral  regeneration  of  the  world 
which  sprang  tlierefrom,  as  a  principal  argument  for  the 
reality  of  our  Lord’s  resurrection.  But  what  if  the  formation 
of  Christianity,  its  life  and  its  doctrines,  should  prove  to  he 
merely  the  natural  historical  result  of  a  necessary  process  of 
development  ?  Clearly,  if  this,  the  greatest  phenomenon  in 
the  world’s  history,  can  be  shown  to  be  a  merely  natural  link 
in  tlie  cliain  of  events,  then  the  miraculous  and  all  supernatural 
revelations  from  God  are  absolutely  eliminated  from  the 
history  of  mankind.  The  Tilhingcn  critical  school  has  led 
the  van  in  this  last  and  most  comprehensive  attempt,  made 
under  an  inward  compulsion  by  modern  criticism,  to  exclude 
God  from  history.  For  as  long  as  men  could  not  help  re¬ 
garding  Christianity,  at  least  in  respect  of  its  doctrine, 
as  lying  beyond  all  analogies  of  human  wisdom,  it  was  in 
itself,  in  the  uniqueness  of  its  spiritual  purport,  an  actual 
proof  for  the  truth  of  supernatural  revelation, — an  immediate 
attestation  of  its  Founder’s  divinity.  Xor  was  it  then  of 
much  use  to  quarrel  about  the  external  history  and  its  miracu¬ 
lous  or  natural  origin.  Only  it  the  fundamental  and  essential 
ideas  ot  Christianity  can  be  fully  connected  with  natural  and 
human  factors  already  extant,  and  shown  to  be  their  intrinsi¬ 
cally  necessary  development,  would  the  battle  be  thoroughly 
and  once  for  all  decided  in  favour  of  the  modern  anti-miracu¬ 
lous  view  of  history.  For  tliis  reason  the  chiet  efforts  of  the 
critical  school  have  been  directed  towards  the  elucidation  of 
primitive  Christianity  and  its  internal  formation,  towards  the 
proof  of  a  connection  between  its  doctrines  and  tlie  elements 
of  spiritual  culture  which  were  already  extant,  and  especially 
towards  the  investigation  of  its  records. 


504 


LECT.  VIII.] 


PRIMITIVE  CIIRISTIAXITY. 


505 


Our  entire  research  into  the  existence  of  the  supernatural 
and  of  the  miraculous  can,  therefore,  only  be  completed  by  an 
examination  of  the  modern  critical  theory  as  to  primitive 
Christianity.  We  have  gained  a  firm  foothold  for  this  under¬ 
taking  by  our  discussion  of  the  resurrection, — as  being  the 
mo.3t  decisive  epoch  in  the  history  of  Christianity,  the  corner¬ 
stone  on  which  the  entire  edifice  of  Christian  teachimi  was 
erected, — and  also  by  our  consideration  of  St.  Faul’s  con¬ 
version.  If  our  opponents  should,  nevertheless,  succeed  in 
eliminating  the  supernatural  element  from  the  growth  of 
doctrine  in  the  apostolic  age,  we  should  find  it  difficult  to 
retain  this  factor  even  in  the  Person  of  Christ.  If,  on  the 
contrary,  we  can  prove  to  them  that  it  is  absolutely  impos¬ 
sible  to  explain  the  origin  and  growth  of  Christianity  from 
merely  natural  and  historical  sources,  without  acknowledging 
the  interference  of  a  super  natural  factor,  then  they  can  have 
no  rational  ground  for  denying  the  miraculous  in  general, 
but  will  be  compelled  to  acknowledge  the  interposition  of 
supernatural  divine  powers  in  all  periods  of  the  world’s 
history. 

But  there  is  another  reason  yet  why  the  discussion  of  this 
question  should  form  the  conclusion  of  our  investigations. 
Of  all  modern  opponents  of  our  old  faith,  we  now  stand  be¬ 
fore  the  greatest,  whom  hitherto  we  have  only  mentioned 
cursorily.  Writing  as  he  did,  only  for  the  learned  world,  his 
name  is  less  known  to  the  public  at  large  than  those  of  Strauss, 
Penan,  and  others,  but  it  will  remain  inscribed  in  the  history 
of  modern  theology  when  that  of  many  others,  now  known  to 
eveiy  one,  will  have  long  since  been  effaced.  I)r.  Ferdinand 
Christian  von  Baur,  professor  of  theology  at  Tubingen  (died 
2d  December  1860),  was  one  of  the  greatest,  if  not  the 
greatest,  theological  scholar  of  this  century  ;  after  the  deatli  of 
Neander,  the  most  notable  historian  of  the  Church  and  her 
doctrines,  not  only  in  Germany,  but  in  the  world ;  the  most 
indefatigable  of  investigators,  especially  as  regards  the  history 
of  primitive  Christianit}^,  in  the  elucidation  of  which  he  has 
deserved  well  of  theology.  He  stands  a  head  and  shoulders 
above  all  other  modern  opponents  of  the  miraculous.  From 
him  they  all  learn  and  draw  their  supplies  ;  they  are  fain  to 
appropriate  the  fruits  of  his  enormous  diligence  if  they  wish 


506 


PPJMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY. 


[LECT.  VIII. 


not  merely  to  beat  the  air,  but  methodically  to  storm  the 
citadel  of  our  Christian  faith.  Strauss  himself,  in  the  presence 
of  this  man,  confesses  his  backwardness  :  “  I  e.xpected,”  says 
he,  “  with  the  presumption  of  youth,  to  storm  the  fortress  by 
a  singde  assault ;  but  it  remained  for  my  greater  master  to 
undertake  a  scientific  siege,  before  which  its  walls  must  fall.” 

'  And,  in  truth,  if  human  power,  human  diligence  and  acute¬ 
ness,  could  ever  bring  about  the  overthrow  of  our  faith,  this 
man  would  have  accomplished  it.  But  our  present  theology 
is  daily  becoming  more  convinced  that  he  was  incompetent  to 
this  task,  and  that,  in  Spite  of  all  his  unutterable  exertions, 
he  did  not  succeed  in  proving  the  merely  natural  origin  of 
Christianity.  This  is  one  of  the  surest  signs  that  the  rock 
upon  which  our  faith  is  founded  is  absolutely  indestructible. 
To  impress  you  with  this  conviction  is  the  last  aim  of  these 
lectures. 

For  this  purpose,  we  will  first  make  ourselves  acquainted 
with  the  principles  of  Baur  and  his  school,,  and  their  repre¬ 
sentation  of  primitive  Christianity  thereupon  founded  ;  and 
second,  we  will  endeavour  to  give  a  critique  of  their  theory. 


I. - THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  TUEBINGEN  SCHOOL. 

Baur  once  blamed  Strauss  for  venturing  to  write  a  critique 
of  the  gospel  history  without  a  preceding  critical  investigation 
of  the  Gospels  ;  and  we  ourselves  have  seen  that  Strauss  passes 
over  this  point  too  lightly,  even  in  his  new  edition  of  the  Life 
of  Christ.  It  is  this  gap  which  the  Tubingen  School  endea¬ 
vours  to  fill  up.  The  weak  point  of  Strauss  is  the  strong 
point  with  these  critics,  or  at  least  that  to  which  they  devote 
their  chief  attention.  Their  maxim  is,  that  we  must  recur 
from  the  criticism  of  history  to  that  of  the  historical  ivritinrfs. 
No  certain  conclusions  as  to  the  history  of  the  life  of  Christ, 
or  the  origin  of  the  Christian  Church,  can  be  arrived  at  until 
we  have  discovered  by  whom,  under  what  influences,  and 
with  what  tendency  the  different  books  of  the  New  Testament 
were  written.  Thus  the  chief  importance  of  the  Ttibingen 
School — i.e.  of  Baur  and  his  followers,  Schwegler,  Ik  Kustlin, 
Zeller,  Hilgenfeld,  Holsten,  etc. — lies  in  the  criticcd  investiga- 


LECT.  VIII.]  THE  PEIXCIPLES  OF  THE  TUEBINGEN  SCHOOL.  507 


tion  into  the.  origin  of  the  JVeiv  Testament,  and  the  history  of  the 
apostolic  and  post-apostolic  age,  with  its  peculiarly  constituted 
parties. 

In  order  to  comprehend  the  motive  principle  of  these  inves¬ 
tigations,  we  must  remember  that  the  zenith  of  this  school’s 
development  coincides  with  that  of  the  Hegelian  philosophy 
at  Tubingen.  The  ivhole  of  Baurs  conception  of  history  is 
accordingly  ptervaded  toy  the  TIcgelictn  philosophy.  Though  he 
may  gradually  have  overcome  much  of  its  onesidedness,  he  v/as 
to  the  last  governed  by  its  fundamental  idea,  viz.  the  imma¬ 
nence  of  God  and  the  world,  according  to  which  the  relation 
of  the  divine  and  human  spirit  must  be  conceived  as  essential 
unity,  not  as  personal  distinction  and  intercourse.^  God  does 
not  live  and  reign  above  the  world  and  its  changes ;  He  is 
only  realized  in  and  with  it,  and  the  history  of  the  world  is 
the  process  of  absolute  Being,  which  developes  with  an  iron 
necessity  according  to  natural  laws.  All  that  appears  in 
nature  and  history  is  a  revelation  of  the  eternal  Idea.  But 
the  latter  is  never  fully  realized  in  a  single  individual,  only 
in  the  general  development  taken  as  a  whole.  The  individual, 
as  such,  always  stands  in  a  certain  contradictory  relation  to 
the  universal  Idea,  negatives  it,  and  must  therefore  itself  be 
negatived.  This  eternally  restless  and  aimless  process  is  the 
continuous  negation  of  a  negation  in  which  one  phenomenon 
always  calls  forth  the  next,  so  that  each  can  be  connected 
with  the  preceding  one  and  explained  from  it.  In  this  mono¬ 
tonous  path  the  world’s  history,  and  likewise  the  history  of  the 
Church,  as  of  all  religious  development,  is  ever  marching  on. 

With  this  fundamental  view,  Baur  could  not  but  consider 
the  doctrines  “  of  an  eternally  self-perfected  personality  of 
God,  of  a  spontaneous  creation  of  the  world,  of  sin  and  moral 
perversion  originating  from  the  freedom  of  man,  of  man’s  per¬ 
sonal  immortality,  as  imperfect  notions  of  religious  belief. 
But  above  all  he  must,  if  consistent,  reject  the  doctrines  of  a 
truly  supernatural  revelation,  and  of  a  miraculous,  unipuc  union 

*  Not  until  later,  vvlien  Baur’s  liistorical  principles  had  been  long  since 
settled,  did  he  appear  to  recognise  the  personality  of  God  somewhat  more  fully  ; 
when,  e.g.,  he  says:  “  If  God  bo  truly  conceived  as  a  Spirit,  then  either  He  must 
be  as  such  immediately  personal,  or  else  it  is  not  evident  what  the  attribute  of 
personality  can  contribute  to  the  conception  of  God  as  the  absolute  Being.” 


50S 


PELMITIVE  CHEISTIAXITT. 


[lect.  YIII. 


of  God  and  man  in  Christ,  and  of  sinless  perfection  in  the 
historical  Christ  as  the  Eecleemer  and  Saviour  of  the  world. 
These  he  must  transmute  into  the  idea  of  the  essential  unity 
of  the  .divine  and  human  spirit,  and  of  a  continuous,  necessary 
reconciliation  and  union  of  both,  which  must  he  principally 
accomplished  by  the  moral  self-development  of  man.”  ' 

From  this  it  is  evident  that,  on  the  standpoint  of  Eaur,  the 
miraculous  is  impossible.  Everything  takes  place  in  a  neces¬ 
sary  natural  development,  in  which  one  phenomenon  begets 
another,  and  in  which,  therefore,  nothing  can  form  an  absolutely 
new  beginning  (which  is  the  nature  of  a  miracle,  vide  p.  293), 
but  all  is  only  the  result  of  germs  and  causes  already  extant. 
FTot  even  Christianity  may  .form  any  exception  to  this  abso¬ 
lutely  valid  law.  It  must  therefore  allow  of  being  included 
as  a  historical  phenomenon  in  the  universal  development  of  the 
world,  by  being  considered  as  a  period  in  the  general  develop¬ 
ment  of  religious  consciousness.  It  had  no  miraculous  begin- 
ning,  nor  has  there  appeared  in  Christ  any  absolutely  new 
principle  which  could  have  been  the  sudden  and  unmediated 
commencement  of  a  new  development.  Christianity  is  only 
the  ncdural  unity  of  all  pre-Christian  schools  of  tlwvejht,  “  the 
ripe  fruit  of  all  the  higher  longings  that  had  hitherto  stirred 
amongst  all  branches  of  the  great  human  family.”^  Baur  will 
not  acknowledge  any  other  view  of  history  as  entirely  un¬ 
biassed,  or  “free  from  presuppositions  ”  as  he  likes  to  call  it. 
For  him  a  strictly  scientific  research  is  only  that  which 
excludes  all  supernatural  interference  of  God  in  history,  and 
seeks  to  derive  every  phenomenon  from  purely  natural  causes. 
Hence  to  this  day  the  peculiar  fashion,  prevalent  amongst  the 
opponents  of  all  positive  belief,  of  acknowledging  as  “  scientific" 
only  those  theories  which  tend  to  deny  the  supernatural,  and 
of  accusing  all  others  of  being  “  biassed  by  dogmatic  presup¬ 
positions  ”  and  “  unscientific  as  if  a  belief  in  the  supernatural 
must  exclude  strict  logic,  and  did  not  rather  improve  it ;  as 
if  it  darkened  our  rational  knowledge,  and  did  not  rather 
enlighten  and  extend  it. 

Baur  maintained  these  anti-miraculous  principles  to  the  last. 

’  Landerer;  Worte  der  Enmierung  an  F.  C.  v.  Baur,  p.  38.  Cf.  this  pam¬ 
phlet  also'  for  the  following  pages. 

^  Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  p.  167. 


LECT,  VIII.]  THE  PRIXCIPLES  OF  THE  TUEBINGEN  SCHOOL.  509 


“  Whoever,”  he  writes,^  “  can  see  in  the  incarnation  of  tlie  Son 
of  God  nothing  hut  an  absolute  miracle,  must  thereby  give 
up  all  historical  connection.  The  miraculous  is  an  absolute 
beginning ;  and  the  more  this  beginning  is  the  precondition  of 
all  that  follows,  the  more  must  the  whole  series  of  phenomena 
w'hich  belong  to  the  region  of  Christianity  bear  the  impress  of 
the  same  miraculous  character.  If  at  the  first  point  tlie  his¬ 
torical  continuity  is  rent  asunder,  then  a  similar  interruption 
is  possible  at  every  succeeding  stage.  It  is,  therefore,  very 
natural  that  historical  investigation  should,  in  its  own  interest, 
seek  to  itichide  the  miracle  of  the  absolute  beginning  in  the  one  his¬ 
torical  connection,  and  dissolve  it  as  far  as  possible  into  its  natured 
elements.”  Similarly  he  remarks  in  another  passage  : ^  “It  is 
undeniable  that  the  tendency  of  historical  consideredion  must  be 
to  bring  down  the  supernatural  and  miracidous,  which  consti¬ 
tutes  the  specific  character  (?)  of  Christianity,  to  an  absolute 
minimum ;  nor  can  it,  from  its  very  nature,  have  any  other 
tendency.  Its  task  is  to  investigate  wdiat  has  happened  in  ' 
the  connection  of  its  causes  and  effects  ;  but  the  miraculous, 
in  its  absolute  sense,  destroys  the  natural  connection.”  So 
only  that  can  be  historical  investigation  which  tries  to  get  rid 
of  the  miraculous  as  far  as  possible.  But  what  if  the  miracu¬ 
lous  itself  w^ere  historical  ? 

Tlius  Baur  from  the  outset  declares  war  against  the  miracu¬ 
lous  ;  but  he  employs  a  peculiar  method  in  getting  rid  of  it. 
We  have  already  seen  how,  for  this  purpose,  the  Piationalists 
make  use  of  the  “  natural,”  i.e.  unnatural  explanation  of  iso¬ 
lated  miracles:  how  Strauss  and  Eenan  class  miracles  in  general 
under  the  head  of  legends  and  fabrications.  Baur,  on  the 
other  hand,  does  not  engage  in  many  skirmishes  about  isolated 
miracles ;  though,  where  he  does  so,  he  assumes  either  that 
they  were  legends  of  unintentional  origin,  or  still  oftener, 
didactic  fabrications.  His  chief  endeavour  is  to  divest  the 
pl'jniomenon  of  Christianity  as  a  ivhole  of  its  miraculous  cha¬ 
racter  ;  and  this  he  does  by  deriving  the  elements  of  the  Cliris- 
tian  religion  as  much  as  possible  from  conceptions  and  ideas 
already  extant  in  Judaism  and  heathenism,  and  by  connecting 
them  with  these,  as  though  they  were  the  products  of  a  natural 

*  Das  Christentlium  der  ersten  drei  Jalirhmderte,  2d  ed.  p.  1. 

Die  Tiihlnfjer  Schide,  p.  14. 


510 


rrJMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY. 


[LECT.  VIII. 


development.  The  substance  of  history,  as  extracted  by  his  criti¬ 
cism, — but  often,  too,  invented  by  it, — is  of  its  own  accord  to 
show  the  superfluousness  and  impossibility  of  miracles.  The 
means  by  which  he  seeks  to  eliminate  the  miraculous,  is,  in 
short,  the  demonstration  of  historical  analogies  and  ]joints  of 
contact  between  the  pre-Christian  and  the  Christian  view  of 
the  world  and  of  God. 

How,  then,  does  Baur  discover  these  ?  He  looks  for  certain 
views  which  are  common  on  the  one  hand  .to  the  nature  of 
Christianity,  and  on  the  other  to  the  general  character  of  tliat 
age.  “  The  more  decidedly  such  common  points  of  connection 
appear,  the  clearer  is  the  light  which  they  cast  upon  the  his¬ 
torical  origin  of  Christianity  itself.”  ^  Such,  e.g.,  is  the  idea 
of  universalism.  This  was  derived  by  Christianity  from  the 
world-wide  Eoinan  empire.  “  In  its  universalism  Christianity 
stood  upon  the  same  level  to  which  the  Homan  State  had  raised 
itself  by  its  world-wide  monarchy.  .  ,  .  The  universalism 
of  Christianity  never  could  have  penetrated  into  the.  general 
consciousness  of  the  nations  had  not  the  way  been  prepared 
for  it  by  political  universalism.  In  its  essence,  Christian 
universalism  is  the  general  form  of  consciousness  to  which  the 

O 

development  of  mankind  up  to  the  appearance  of  Christianity 
had  attained.” 

Christianity  became  the  absolute  religion  on  account  of  its 
purely  spiritual  character,  since  it  is  more  free  from  all  that  is 
merely  outward  and  sensuous  than  any  other  religion,  and 
more  deeply  founded  on  the  principles  of  moral  consciousness, 
knowing  no  other  worship  of  God  than  that  which  takes  place 
in  spirit  and  in  truth.  The  specific  pre-eminence  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  in  its  character  as  the  absolute  religion,  is  based  upon 
the  fact,  that  in  it  man  becomes  conscious  of  himself  as  a  moral 
subject.  “  That  which  exalts  Christianity,  as  against  all  other 
belief,  to  the  dignity  of  the  absolute  religion,  is  in  the  last 
instance  nothing  but  the  purely  moral  character  of  its  facts  (?), 
doctrines,  and  requirements.”  ^  This  aspect  of  Christianity  is 
connected  with  the  Grcelc  philosophy,  through  which,  since  the 


*  Das  Cliristenthum  dtr  ersten  drei  JaJtrhunderfe,  pp.  2-22. 

*  Die  TilLinrjer  Schide  u.  Hire  Stellung  zur  Gegenwart  (2d  cd.  pp.  30  et  ss.). 
Cf.  witli  wliat  follow.s,  Beckli,  “Die  Tiibiiiger  liistoiische  Schule,”  in  the  Zfit- 
schrift fiir  Protestaiillsmus  u.  Kirche  for  Jliireh  and  April  1804. 


LECT.  YIIl]  the  PraXCIPLES  OF  THE  TUEBINGEN  SCHOOL.  511 


time  of  Socrates,  men  had  become  acquainted  with  the  concep¬ 
tion  of  the  sidject.  The  philosophy  of  Plato,  more  especially, 
is  very  nearly  related  to  Christianity,  even  in  its  ideal  ground¬ 
work.  His  doctrines  respecting  a  Creator  of  the  world,  the 
immortality  of  the  soul,  the  essential  affinity  between  man  and 
God,  of  man’s  need  of  communion  with  God, — the  way  in  which 
he  recognises  the  dependence  of  man  on  a  higher  world,  from 
which  alone  he  can  receive  instruction  as  to  divine  thing's, — 
all  these  are  so  many  points  of  contact  with  Christianity. 
Other  tendencies  of  thought,  at  least  negatively,  paved  the  way 
for  Christianity,  since  by  their  errors  or  onesidedness  they 
called  forth  a  revulsion  of  the  religious  consciousness  in  tlic 
opposite  direction.  Thus,  e.g.,  the  haughty  self-contentment 
of  the  Stoic  formed  as  great  a  contrast  to  Christianity  as  did 
the  voluptuousness  of  the  Epicurean  to  Christian  self-denial. 
The  more  onesided  the  subjective  character  of  philosophy  in 
the  sceptical  systems  which  despaired  of  attaining  to  any  cer¬ 
tainty  of  truth,  the  more  must  the  necessity  of  an  oljecfive 
foundation  for  the  truth  become  clear  to  men.  There  naturally 
followed  a  revulsion  of  consciousness  from  the  subjective  to 
the  objective,  from  philosophy  to  religion,  from  mere  specula¬ 
tion  to  the  belief  in  actual  revelations  of  God. 

Put  the  chief  factor  to  which  attention  must  be  directed  in 
considering  the  origin  of  Christianity  is  Judaism.  Christianity 
is  notliing  but  Judaism  spirituedized.  And  this  spiritualization 
of  Judaism  was  made  way  for  in  the  Old  Testament  by  the 
prophets.  Their  writings  “  already  contain  the  elements  of  a 
religion  which  only  needed  to  be  brought  into  a  more  general 
form  of  consciousness  in  order  to  become  Christianity.”  As 
for  the  national  impress  and  the  particularism  of  the  Jewish 
religion  which  is  opposed  to  Christianity,  it  had  broken  through 
these  bounds  in  the  religious  philosogdnj  of  Alexandria — this 
Hellenic  Judaism — by  the  allegorical  hitcrpretation  of  the  Old 
Testament.  In  this  Avay  a  means  had  been  discovered  of 
extending  at  pleasure  the  scope  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
lienee  there  originated  “  a  more  universal  form  of  the  religious 
consciousness  which  already  possessed  something  of  the  spirit 
of  Christianity.”  .  .  .  “  In  fact,  we  constantly  find  germs  of 
Christianity  rvlierever  Judaism  or  heathendom  returns  within 
itself.  As  often-  as  this  happens,  a  more  universal  and  self- 


512 


PllIMITIYE  CHRISTIANITY. 


[LECT.  VIII. 


dependent  form  of  religious  consciousness  is  in  process  of 
development.”  The  ascetic  aspect  of  Christianity  finally,  its 
renunciation  of  the  possessions  and  pleasures  of  this  life,  and 
its  separation  from  the  world,  stand  in  close  relationship  with 
the  sects  of  the  Therapeutes  and  Essenes,  who  withdrew  from 
the  corruption  of  the  world  into  still  communities,  where,  with 
all  things  in  common,  they  lived  the  most  simple  and  laborious 
life,  apart  from  all  worldly  delights. 

In  this  manner  Baur  arrives  at  the  conclusion  that  the 
germs  of  a  new  creation  lay  dormant  in  the  dissolution  of  the 
old  world,  and  only  needed  to  be  centred  in  one  focus  in 
order  to  raise  the  religious  consciousness  to  the  level  of  Chris¬ 
tianity.  Christianity,  therefore,  is  only  the  natural  unity  of  all 
these  elements.  “  It  contains  nothing  which  is  not  conditioned 
by  a  preceding  series  of  causes  and  effects ;  nothing  which  had 
not  long  before  been  prepared  in  different  ways  ;  nothing  which 
had  not  already  been  vindicated  either  as  a  result  of  rational 
thought,  or  as  a  need  of  the  human  heart,  or  as  a  requirement 
of  the  moral  consciousness.”  ^  But  that  these  existing  elements 
of  a  new  religious  growth  “  should  converge  in  one  special  point, 
and  in  this  one  special  individual,  this  is  the  wonder  in  the 
origin  of  Christianity  which  no  historical  reflection  can  further 
analyse.” 

According  to  Baur,  the  true  kernel  of  Christianity  appears 
in  all  those  points  on  which  Jesus  insisted  when  He  appeared 
as  the  former  of  the  Jewish  religion.  The  pure  elements  of 
this  religion  formed  the  motive  principle  of  His  religious  vmrk. 
He  did  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil ;  and  the  law  was 
lalfilled  by  Him,  inasmuch  as  He  recurred  from  the  merely 
outward  ceremonial  service  to  the  internal  disposition.  The 
tendency  of  the  most  important  of  Christ’s  didactic  discourses 
was  to  refer  man  back  to  himself,  to  call  his  attention  to  all 
that  may  be  learned  from  the  wants  of  his  moral  nature. 

'  Das  Christentlium  der  ersten  3  Jahrhiinderte,  p.  21.  Further  on  he  adds, 
somewhat  ambiguously,  that  the  Christian  doctrines  would  doubtless  have  been 
relegated  into  the  ranks  of  so  many  other  sayings  of  the  wise  men  of  old,  which 
have  long  since  been  forgotten,  “had  they  not  in  the  mouth  of  the  Founder 
become  icords  '-•f  eternal  life”  (pp.  35,  36).  We  have  already  seen  (p.  389)  that 
Strauss  in  like  manner  refers  the  true  humanitarian  tendency  in  Christ  to  a 
Hellenic  origin,  and  considers  His  purely  spiritual  and  moral  conception  of  God 
as  an  Old  Testament  heirloom. 


LECT.  VIII.]  THE  PPJXCIPLES  OF  THE  TUEBINGEN  SCHOOL.  513 

“  All  that  belongs  to  the  truly  moral  purport  of  Christ’s  teach¬ 
ings,  as  contained  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  parables, 
etc., — his  doctrine  as  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  conditions  of 
its  membership  whereby  man  is  placed  in  a  truly  moral  relation 
to  God ; — all  this  constitutes  the  intrinsic  essence  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  and  its  substantial  centre  ”  {Die  Tubinger  Schule,  p.  3  0). 
In  those  didactic  discourses  we  find  a  system  of  religious  truth 
which  imparts  to  Christianity  the  character  of  the  purest  rational 
religion.  “  What  should  there  be  supernatural  in  the  fact  that 
the  eternal  verities  of  reason  were  once  pronounced  in  such  a 
way  that  they  only  needed  to  be  pronounced  in  order  to  en¬ 
sure  their  universal  acknowledgment  ?  ”  True,  even  the  most 
rational  verities  of  religion  will  not  meet  with  general  accept¬ 
ance  if  they  are  not  supported  by  the  weight  of  a  great  per¬ 
sonality.  But  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  Jesus  was 
just  such  an  extraordinary  personality,  intellectually  gifted  in 
the  highest  degree,  and  morally  grand.  That,  however,  whicli 
gives  His  person  the  highest,  its  absolute  signific  nice,  is  only 
that  in  Him  “  first  this  free  conception  of  the  relation  between 
God  and  man  was  cleared  from  all  impurity,  entered  into  the 
livinof  consciousness  of  man,  and  found  there  its  truest  and 
most  immediate  expression  ”  sup). 

In  the  miracles  of  Christ,  and  in  the  form  that  they  have 
taken  in  tradition,  we  can  only  see  an  effect  of  the  wonderful 
influence  of  Christ  upon  His  contemporaries.  Ho  sooner  had 
He  made  Himself  conspicuous  than  men  saw  in  Him  the  long- 
expected  Saviour.  The  question  is,  whether  Jesus  was  at  once 
firmly  convinced  of  His  Messianic  mission,  or  whether  this 
idea  only  gradually  gained  ground  in  Him.  We  shall  presently 
see  that  Baur  does  not  sufficiently  explain  to  us  how  Jesus 
came  to  declare  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah.  Decidedly  as  He 
asserted  the  conviction  of  His  Messianic  mission.  He  was 
e.xceedingly  reserved  as  to  the  political  expectations  of  His 
people,  and  held  entirely  aloof  from  them,  for  He  only  wished 
to  work  by  a  spiritual  reformation.  Early  in  His  career  He 
had  become  convinced  that  the  sacrifice  of  His  life  was  neces¬ 
sary  to  the  realization  of  His  idea.  After  a  lengthy  stay  in 
Galilee,  He  went  to  Jerusalem,  in  order  to  bring  about  the 
crisis  which  ended  in  His  death.  The  heads  of  His  nation 
condemned  Him,  under  the  influence  of  tlie  correct  presentiment 


514 


PKIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY. 


[lECT.  VUE 


that  He  had  hronght  on  the  end  of  the  old  faith.  His  death 
cut  off  the  last  possibility  of  identifying  the  Messiah,  whom 
He  claimed  to  be,  with  the  Jewisli  Messiah,  who  was  to  have 
erected  another  kingdom  of  David.  Xot  until  then  did  the 
Messianic  idea  which  He  had  enunciated  stand  forth  in  all  its 
purity,  and  now  it  could  not  but  become  the  principle  of  a 
new  religion  different  from  Judaism.  Christianity,  therefore, 
gained  its  world-wide  importance  through  the  death  of  Jesus. 
His  resurrection  is  merely  the  declaration,  put  in  the  form  of  a 
fact,  that  His  person  not  only  did  not  perish,  but  was  even 
raised  by  death  to  the  dignity  which  pertained  to  Him  as  being 
the  living  exponent  of  the  new  spiritual  religion.  “  What  the 
resurrection  psr  se  is,”  says  Baur,  with  peculiar  caution,  “  it 
does  not  lie  within  the  province  of  historical  research  to  deter¬ 
mine”  (cf  p.  453).  The  conviction  that  His  resurrection  was 
an  absolute  necessity  forced  itself  upon  the  disciples,  and  for 
their  consciousness  it  was  a  firm  fact.  Church  history,  there¬ 
fore,  has  for  its  starting-point,  not  the  objective  fact  of  the 
resurrection,  but  the  helief  of  the  disciples  in  it.  This  belief 
was  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  Churcli. 

Thus  primitive  Christianity,  according  to  Baur,  is  a  form  of 
the  development  of  Judaism,  to  which,  however,  all  the  other 
more  spiritual  elements  of  that  age  contributed.  In  virtue  of 
the  urgent  efforts  which  He  directed  towards  promoting  an 
internal  and  spiritual  perception  of  the  law,  Christ  became  the 
author  of  a  religious  and  moral  reformation  of  Judaism ;  but 
in  all  this  He  was  a  mere  man,  nor  did  He  exceed  the  limits 
of  wdiat  was  purely  natural  either  in  His  person  or  His  work. 
And  thus,  moreover.  He  was  regarded  during  the  primitive 
Christian  age.  The  first  Christians  were  Jews,  only  they  be¬ 
lieved  in  a  Messiah  vdio  had  already  appeared,  without,  how¬ 
ever,  ascribing  to  Him  divine  attributes.  In  this  belief  their 
entire  doctrine  consisted.  To  substantiate  this,  Baur  appeals 
to  the  Ebionites,  a  party  of  Jewnsh  Christians  who  held  to  the 
law  of  Moses,  and  denied  the  birth  of  Jesus  from  the  Virgin,  de¬ 
claring  Him  to  be  a  mere  man.  Primitive  Christianity  was,  in 
fact,nothing  but  Ebionitism, — f.e.a  Jewish  sectwhich  afterwards 
developed  into  the  universal  Church, — not,  however,  because  it 
successively  drew  conclusion  after  conclusion  from  its  chief  tenet 
that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  but  only  because  it  was  gradually 


LECT.  VIII.]  THE  rrJXCirLES  OF  THE  TUEBINGEN  SCHOOL.  515 

compelled  to  drop  one  piece  of  the  old  Judaism  after  another.^ 
For  these  primitive  Christians  had  as  yet  no  idea  that  the 
kingdom  of  God  was  to  be  extended  beyond  the  boundaries  of 
Israel.  The  Jewish-Christian  party  was  predominant  as  far 
down  as  the  beginning  of  the  second  century;  but  before  this 
another  more  free  and  iiniversalist  school  had  separated  from  it, 
chiefly  through  the  teaching  and  work  of  the  Apostle  Paul. 
This  body  held  Christianity  to  be  the  universal  religion,  released 
itself  from  the  bondage  of  the  law,  and  directed  its  attention 
chiefly  to  the  heathen.  Hence  it  gradually  became  the  more 
numerous,  and  later  on  the  dominant  party.  Amongst  its 
members  a  higher  conception  of  Christ — of  His  pre-existence. 
His  unity  with  the  Father,  His  Godhead — was  gradually  de¬ 
veloped  during  the  course  of  the  second  century. 

The  chief  representatives  of  the  former  party  are  St.  Peter 
and  St.  James  ;  tliat  of  the  latter,  St.  Paul.  According  to  Baur, 
the  entire  history  of  primitive  Christianity  is  ruled  by  this 
opposition  between  Petrinism  and  Paidinisni,  or  between 
Jewish  Christians  and  Gentile  Christians.  There  are  traces 
of  it  in  the  Hew  Testament.  In  Gal.  ii.  we  read  of  a  dispute 
between  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  as  to  the  relative  positions  of 
the  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians.  In  1  Cor.  i.  we  read  of 
parties  in  the  Corinthian  Church  who  called  themselves  by 
the  names  of  Paul,  Apollos,  Kephas,  and  Christ.  In  the 
Epistle  of  St.  James  we  find  a  legal  Jew  setting  up  works  as 
against  mere  faith.  In  course  of  time,  however,  men  sought 
to  mediate  between  these  two  opposites,  and  to  reconcile  them. 
All  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  owe  their  origin  either  to 
one  or  other  of  these  parties,  or  to  an  attempt  at  mediation 
between  them. 

For  what  follows  from  this  view  of  primitive  Christianity 
with  respect  to  the  genuineness  of  the  books  of  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament  ?  First,  that  the  looks  in  which  we  find  the  doctrine  of 
th'  Godhead  of  Christ  edready  developed  cannot  have  been  com¬ 
posed  till  the  second  century.  For  the  Apostolic  Church,  and 
even  St.  Paul,  had  no  such  high  conception  of  Christ.  And 
second,  that  only  those  writings  which  distinctly  express  that 
opposition,  i.e.  which  are  either  decisively  Petrine  or  entirely 
Pauline,  can  be  genuine ;  whereas  those  in  which  the  edge  of 
*  Cf.  Scliwegler,  Das  nadiapostoUsche  Zt'daller,  i.  p.  107. 


516 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY. 


[lECT.  VIII, 


this  opposition  is  already  blunted,  and  which  are  evidently 
trying  to  mediate  between  the  two  tendencies,  must  belong  to 
that  later  acje  in  which  men  were  working  at  the  reconciliation 
of  both  parties.  It  is  presupposed  that  all  the  writings  of 
primitive  Christianity — those  of  the  New  Testament  not  ex¬ 
cepted — must  have  a  Undemy  to  exalt  either  the  Jewish- 
Christian  party  of  St.  Peter,  or  the  Gentile-Christian  following 
of  St.  Paul,  or  else  to  reconcile  both.  From  this  characteristic 
of  the  Gospels  we  may  explain  their  legendary  miraculous 
contents.  The  more  distinct  the  tendency  of  a  gospel,  the  less 
can  it  be  considered  a  reliable  record.  The  more  developed 
the  doctrine  of  Christ’s  person,  and  the  more  conciliatory  the 
tone  of  a  book  towards  both  parties,  the  more  surely  may  we 
place  it  in  a  later  age. 

In  accordance  with  these  principles,  Baur  considers  that 
only  jive  books  of  the  New  Testament  are  undoubtedly  genuine 
and  apostolic,  viz.  one  book  of  a  Jewish-Christian  tendency, 
the  Revelation  of  St.  John,  and  four  Epistles  which  represent 
the  Pauline  or  Gentile-Christian  tendency  in  its  original  form, 
one  to  the  Romans^  two  to  the  Corinthians,  and  one  to  the 
Galatians ;  whereas  those  to  the  Ephesians,  Colossians,  and 
Philippians  have  too  high  a  view  of  Christ’s  person,  and  the 
others  bear  other  traces  of  later  origin.  Of  the  Gospels,  that 
of  St.  Mattheio  is  the  most  authentic  documental  record,  be¬ 
cause  it  betrays  least  party  tendency.  Whilst  this  is  Jewish- 
Christian,  that  of  St.  Luke  is  Pauline-universalist,  that  of  St. 
Mark  mediatory.  The  latest  of  all,  chiefly  on  account  of  its 
liighly  developed  philosophical  Christology,  is  the  Gospel  of 
St.  John,  which  some  unknown  person  wrote  after  160.^  The 
book  which  most  clearly  betrays  a  tendency  to  reconcile  the 
Pauline  and  the  Petrine  school  is  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
especially  because  in  chap.  xv.  it  tells  of  the  agreement  be¬ 
tween  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  in  their  resolution  not  to  force 
the  Gentile  Christians  to  observe  the  Mosaic  law, — a  narrative 
which,  no  doubt,  is  diametrically  opposed  to  Baur’s  entire  con¬ 
ception  of  primitive  Christianity,  and  must  therefore  be  declared 
to  be  unhistorical. 

These  are,  in  short,  the  views  of  Baur  (somewhat  modified 

’  Cf.,  however,  the  concessions  since  then  made  by  the  critical  scliool  in  regard 
to  the  age  of  the  Gospels,  as  already  stated. 


LECT.  VIII.]  EEFUTATION  OF  THE  TUEBINGEN  THEOBY. 


517 


by  his  school,  which  at  present  has  its  chief  seats  in  Switzer¬ 
land,  France,  and  Holland)  with  respect  to  the  origin  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  more  especially  of  the  New  Testament.  At  present  we 
cannot  follow  this  criticism  into  details  as  to  the  orimn  of  the 

O 

single  books.  Here  we  are  concerned  only  with  the  fanda- 
mental  views  of  the  school  in  general,  inasmuch  as  it  repre¬ 
sents  the  greatest  and  most  extensive  attempt  to  do  away  with 
the  supernatural  element  in  the  origin  of  Christianity.  In 
order  to  see  whether  this  attempt  has  succeeded,  we  will  now 
proceed  to  examine  successively  the  princiiJles  of  the  school, 
its  attempt  to  connect  Christianity  ivith  yrc- Christian  systems 
oj  thovght,  its  conception  of  the  person  and  the  consciousness 
of  Christ,  the  important  position  which  it  assigns  to  the 
Apostle  Paul  in  the  history  of  the  primitive  Church,  and 
finallv,  the  antitheses,  the  intensification  and  reconcilement  of 
which  is  supposed  to  have  fixed  the  character  of  the  entire 
apostolic  and  post-apostolic  age. 


II. - CRITIQUE  AND  REFUTATION  OF  THIS  THEORY. 

This  school  arrogates  to  its  criticism  a  purely  historical 
character.  It  claims  to  have  approached  the  investigation  of 
the  Christian  records  without  any  other  than  a  historical  in¬ 
terest,  and  to  have  studied  primitive  Christianity  in  the  un¬ 
biassed  spirit  of  true  science,  vdiich  alloivs  of  no  presuppositions. 
Is  this,  I  ask,  even  psychologically  possible  ?  Can  any  one 
approach  the  investigation  of  a  subject  which  so  deeply  aflects 
our  own  life  as  does  Christianity,  without  any  presuppositions 
wdiatsoever  ?  Must  there  not  be  some  self-delusion  in  this 
matter  ?  A  corpse  may  be  dissected  without  sympathy,  and 
merely  in  the  interests  of  science,  but  never  a  living  body. 
Only  that  which  does  not  in  the  least  affect  us'  can  be  investi¬ 
gated  entirely  in  an  unbiassed  spirit,  and  merely  in  the  general 
interests  of  science.  Ev'en  Strauss  has  raised  this  objection 
against  Baur.  “  With  all  due  respect,”  he  remarks  {Lchcn 
Jesii,  p.  13),  “for  what  the  learned  gentlemen  say,  I  must  still 
confess  that  I  consider  what  they  lay  claim  to  an  impossi¬ 
bility;  nor,  even  were  it  possible,  would  it  seem  to  me  praise¬ 
worthy.  True,  the  man  who  writes  about  the  rulers  of 


518 


rillMITIVE  CIirJSTIAXITY. 


[lect.  viil 


Nineveh,  or  the  Egyptian  Pharaohs,  may  do  so  merely  in  the 
interests  of  history.  But  Christianity  is  such  a  living  power, 
and  the  question  as  to  how  it  originated  is  fraught  with  such 
momentous  issues  for  the  present  day,  that  the  investigator 
must  he  destitute  of  all  sense  if  he  should  feel  none  but  a 
historical  interest  in  it.” 

But  this  “  absence  of  presupposition”  is  not  only  a  psycho¬ 
logical  delusion, — it  is  belied  by  the  principles  of  the  Tubingen 
School.  In  reality  the  investigations  of  this  school  are  not 
“  purely  historical,”  but  governed  throughout  by  the  philoso¬ 
phical  axioms  of  Pantheism  :  they  are  not  free  from  presuppo¬ 
sitions  ;  on  the  contrary,  as  regards  the  chief  question,  viz.  the 
possibility  of  the  supernatural,  they  are  previously  decided. 
Baur  maintains  from  the  outset  that  the  really  historical  and 
essential  substance  of  Christianity  can  only  be  that  wdiich 
does  not  transcend  our  natural  human  standards,  and  which 
can  be  linked  to  other  similar  historical  phenomena.  Hence 
his  constant  endeavour  to  reduce  the  supernatural  events 
which  are  recorded  to  merely  natural  dirhensions.  Their  his¬ 
torical  element  must  be  purely  natural.  And  why  ?  Because, 
according  to  his  Hegelian  views,  an  immediate  divine  inter¬ 
position  in  the  course  of  history  is  impossible.  What  is  this 
but  approaching  the  investigation  with  a  presupposition, 
whereby  the  main  point  is  already  decided  ?  For  surel}^  the 
most  important  question  with  respect  to  the  origin  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  is  ivhether  its  supernatural  leginning,  as  related  in 
Scripture,  is  historical  or  not  1  By  adopting  such  strongly 
biassed  prineiples,  and  yet  claiming  for  them  a  purely  scien¬ 
tific  and  historical  character,  Baur  lays  himself  open  to  the 
charge  of  legging  the  question,  just  as  Strauss  also  does. 
According  to  Scripture,  all  history,  loth  of  creation  and,  re¬ 
demption,  legins  icith  miracles ;  according  to  Baur,  lohere 
miracles  Icgin,  history  ends.  He  ought  then  to  have  proved  to 
us  that  the  miraculous  itself  cannot  be  historical.  And  since 
he  did  not  do  so,  this  fundamental  principle  of  his  is  a  mere 
presupposition.  True,  Baur  tries  to  assign  the  nature  of  the 
records  as  the  reason  for  his  denial  of  the  miraeulous.  But 
this  is  only  a  veil  for  the  true  reason,  which  lies  in  his 
Hegeiian  views.  And  tins  denial  is  fatal  to  his  whole  system. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  alsence  of  presuppositions,  of  which 


LECT.  VIII.]  EEEUTATIOX  OF  THE  TUEBIXGEX  TIIEOEY. 


519 


this  school  vaunts  itself  so  much,  is  in  reality  the  greatest 
‘possible  assiiviption  ;  that  its  a[)parently  purely  historical  prin¬ 
ciples  include  the  pliilosophical  axiom  that  the  miraculous  is 
impossible  ;  and  that  its  historical  criticism  is  in  truth  dog¬ 
matical,  having  for  its  fundamental  article  the  dogma  of  Pan¬ 
theism.  Prom  this  we  may  easily  comprehend  the  motives 
for  the  attempt  to  link  Christiemity  entirely  to  pre-Christian 
systems  of  thought. 

Paur  would  be  quite  right  in  so  doing  if  it  were  only  we 
men,  i.e.  purely  natural  factors,  which  constitute  history.  But 
the  greatest  factor  of  all  is  the  divine  factor,  which  is  super¬ 
natural,  and  therefore  inexplicable,  but  none  the  less  historical. 
The  divine  deeds,  i.e.  the  miracles,  are  absolute  bedinniims 
which  appear  as  something  entirely  new,  and  can  therefore 
never  be  completely  linked  to  the  old  which  already  exists, 
or  svficiently  explained  from  preceding  events.  But  in  their 
character  of  absolute  beginnings  they  are  not  only  ordinary 
history,  but  history  in  its  most  exalted  sense ;  they  constitute 
the  basis,  the  landmarks,  and  the  interaal  mainspring  of  all 
historical  development.  No  wonder,  then,  that  Baur’s  attempt 
has  signally  failed.  ■ 

In  seeking  for  analogies  to  Christianity,  Baur  takes  the 
essential  nature  of  the  latter  as  consisting  in  its  universalism, 
its  pure  spirituality  and  genuine  morality.  But  I  have 
already  endeavoured  to  show  you  {vide  pp.  37—39)  that  these 
elements  by  no  means  constitute  the  specific  nature  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  which  consists,  above  all,  in  our  having  entered  into  a 
new  relation  to  God,  not  merely  by  recurring  to  our  own  moral 
consciousness,  but  through  certain  historical  facts  and  through 
a  distinct  historical  personage,  viz.  Christ.  Baur  constantly 
emphasizes  only  one  aspect  of  the  historical  development ;  and 
b}^  treating  it  as  the  essential  one,  he  loses  sight  of  the  real 
essence  and  heart’s  core  of  Christianity,  which  is  none  other 
than  the  person  of  Christ.  If  Christianity  be  nothing  but  the 
purest  rational  religion,  which,  upon  closer  inspection,  dwindles 
down  to  a  religionless  morality,  how  poor  and  meagre  is  its 
essence,  though  we  may  exalt  its  moral  truths  ever  so  highly ! 
What  an  unmeaning  phrase  is  it  when  Baur  declares  that  the 
principle  which  makes  Christianity  the  absolute  religion  is 
this,  “  that  man  becomes  conscious  of  himself  as  a  moral  sub- 


520 


PKBUTIVE  CHEISTIANITY. 


[lect.  viir. 


ject !”  Is  this  the  new,  the  distinctive  essence  of  Christianity  ? 
Even  onr  first  parents,  I  trow,  had  attained  to  the  elevation 
of  this  standpoint  when,  in  their  consciousness  of  being  moral 
subjects,  they  were  ashamed  and  hid  themselves.  •  llaur’s  defi¬ 
nitions,  therefore,  do  not  in  the  least  touch  the  specifict^ly 
new  elements  of  Christianity ;  nor  can  they  do  so,  since  lor  his 
standpoint  there  is  nothing  new,  but  everything  necessarily 
follows  from  what  has  gone  before.  Hence,  too,  the  points  of 
contact  so  laboriously  discovered  are  valueless,  since  they  do 
not  concern  the  root  of  the  matter. 

But  they  'do  not  even  sufficiently  explain  what  Baur 
intends  them  to.  What  an  infinite  difference  is  there  be¬ 
tween  the  universalism  of  the  Boman  empire  and  that  of 
Christianity  !— the  former  resting,  upon  the  power  of  the  sword, 
built  up  by  forcible  conquests,  and  moreover  very  far  from 
being  actually  universal ;  the  latter  founded  upon  the  idea  of 
a  physical,  moral,  and  religious  affinity  between  all  men,  their 
common  descent  from  the  first  Adam,  and  their  common 
redemption  through  the  second  Adam.^  What  a  difference  is 
there  between  a  dialogue  of  Plato’s  and  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount;  between  the  strugglings  of  Greek  speculation  and  the 
holy  divine  peace  of  our  Saviour’s  consciousness ;  between  the 
confession  of  Socrates,  that  “  he  knew  only  this,  that  he  knew 
nothing,”  and  the  testimony  of  Him  who  not  only  knew  Him¬ 
self  to  be  in  full  possession  of  the  truth,  but  could  even  say, 
“  I  am  the  Truth between  the  moral  fluctuations  and  errors 
even  of  the  noblest  Greek,  and  the  sinless  perfection  of  that 
One,  who  for  this  reason  can  attach  the  salvation  of  the  world 
to  His  sole  person  ! 

And  what  a  difference,  again,  is  there  between  the  asceticism 
of  the  Essenes,  who  shunned  the  world  and  renounced  its 
society,  and  Christ’s  free  and  open  intercourse  with  the  world, 
prompted  by  His  love,  which  was  seeking  lost  humanity ! 
What  a  contrast,  in  fact,  “  between  the  painful  narrow-minded¬ 
ness  of  Essene  morality  and  tlie  freedom  peculiar  to  the  spirit 


^  It  should  he  reniemhered  that  only  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  i.t.  on  the  ground 
of  rcv^elation,  do  we  find  the  idea  that  all  men  are  descended  from  one  pair 
(Gen.  X.  32  ;  Acts  xvii.  26).  Compare  this  with  the  belief  of  Ilel’enie  heatlien- 
i.sm,  that  their  nation  was  born  from  the  soil,  aird  the  contempt  re.sulling  there¬ 
from  for  all  that  was  loreign. 


LECT.  VIII.]  REFUTATION  OF  THE  TUEBINGEN  THEORY.  521 

and  word  of  Jesus !  In  the  one  case,  man  laboriously  toiling 
at  length  to  place  himstlf  in  the  true  relationship  to  God;  in 
the  other,  full  and  blissful  harmony  with  the  heavenly  Father 
in  the  walk  and  word  of  Christ;” — in  the  one  case,  self-iso¬ 
lation  ;  in  the  other,  intercourse  even  with  publicans  and 
sinners ; — in  the  one  case,  secret  doings ;  in  the  other,  our 
Saviour’s  command  to  preach  upon  the  house-tops,  etc.  The 
most  recent  investigations  on  the  subject  of  Essenism  have 
irrefutably  proved  that,  in  spite  of  isolated  points  of  contact, 
“the  doctrine  of  Jesus  as  compared  with  Essenism,  both  as  a 
whole  and  in  detail,  shows  less  of  agreement  than  of  difference. 
The  spirit  of  both  is  originally  distinct.”  ‘ 

Moreover,  how  can  it  be  historically  proved  that  Hellenic 
culture  and  philosophy,  or  Alexandrine  Judaism  which  was 
permeated  by  these,  or  even  Essenism,  had  a  direct  influence 
upon  the  views  of  Christ,  who  was  “  not  from  below  but  fi’om 
above,”  and  who  spoke  as  His  Father  had  taught  Him,  not 
according  to  the  doctrines  of  men?  (John  viii.  23,  28.)  Im¬ 
possible  ;  for  “  Christianity  is  an  entirely  independent  formation, 
which  came  into  existence  without  any  connection  whatever 
with  these  phenomena.  They  had  no  influence  whatever  on 
Jesus,  and  on  the  circle  in  which  His  cause  at  first  developed” 
(Weizsacker,  tihi  snp.).  To  this  Strauss  objects  {Lebcn  Jesu, 
p.  165),  that  “though  the  circumstances  which  were  the 
originating  causes  of  Christianity  may  be  no  longer  known  to 
us,  this  by  no  means  proves  that  such  causes  did  not  exist ! 
But,  we  answer,  so  long  as  our  opponents  cannot  show  any 
sufficient  natural  cause  for  these  ehects,  it  is  evident  that  no 
one  can  dispute  our  right  to  suppose  that  they  had  a  super¬ 
natural  cause ;  and  this  all  the  more,  inasmuch  as  such  a 
cause  in  fact  explains  everything,  whereas  those  merely  natural 
influences  explain  nothing,  since  their  difference  from  Chris¬ 
tianity  is  always  greater  than  their  affinity  to  it. 

AVe  might  even  go  a  step  further  in  our  proof  for  the 
existence  of  supernatural  factors  in  history,  and  say :  If 


1  Keim,  Der  gpscMrhtUche  ChriMus,  8d  ed.  p.  15  ;  Jesu  von  Naznra,  i.  pp. 
282  et  ss.,  306  ;  KdstUii,  “Jesus  gegeiniber  den  Parteien  seines  Volks,”  in  Gelzer’s 
Prote.'t(tntische  M onatshUilter  for  December  1865,  pp.  363  et  ss.  ;  Kleinert, 
Jesus  ini  VerhuUniss  zu  den  Parteien  seiner  Zeit,  1865  ;  AVeizsacker,  Linter- 
suchuwjen  iiber  die  evangelische  Geschiehte,  p.  418. 


522 


rrJMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY, 


[lECT.  VIII. 


primitive  Christianity  is  nothing  hut  a  development  of 
J  lulaism,  whence,  then,  does  the  latter  come  ?  Baur  does  not 
give  this  question  a  consideration.  But  since  Judaism  claims 
to  he  a  supernaturally  revealed  religion,  and  is  so  according 
to  Christian  views,  this  investigation  would  assuredly  have 
been  most  fitting  as  a  test  of  liis  historical  principles,  which 
aim  at  assigning  a  natural  cause  for  everything.  True,  the 
futility  of  his  undertaking  would  have  become  patent  at  the 
very  outset.  For  even  the  old  covenant,  with  its  doctrine  and 
history,  cannot  possibly  be  explained  as  the  fruit  of  a  merely 
natural  development.  Whilst  all  the  nations  of  the  old  world 
are  under  the  curse  of  nature-worship,  we  find  Israel  alone 
adoring  the  one  siipramundane  God.  Whilst  all  the  nations 
of  the  old  world,  “  with  backward  longings  after  a  vanished 
golden  agei  live  hopelessly  onwards  into  the  ever-deteriorating 
future,”  Israel  alone  looks  hopefully  forward  to  a  future  golden 
age  of  salvation.  How  is  this  ?  Can  it  be  that  this  religion, 
with  those  prophecies  which  are  to  be  miraculously  fullillcd, 
are  a  naturad  product  of  the  popular  spirit  of  Israel,  which  for 
so  long  a  time  rebelled  against  them,  and  needed  a  thousand 
years  of  the  heaviest  divine  chastisements  at  last  to  get  rid 
of  its  natural  tendency  to  idolatry,  and  which  even  then 
appropriated  rather  the  husk  than  the  kernel  of  these  promises  ? 
Even  in  this  preliminary  question  the  historical  principles  of 
the  critical  school  are  found  wanting. 

The  truth  that  underlies  these  deductions  of  Baur,  which 
it  was  his  merit  to  bring  to  light,  is  simply  this,  that  the 
spiritual  tendencies  which  he  regards  as  the  generating  causes 
of  Christianity  really  were  preparations  and  connecting  links 
for  it;  that  they  made  way  for  its  reception  and  spread,  and 
hence  attained  an  influence  on  the  development  of  the  Church 
which  is  not  to  be  underrated.  Hot  until  the  world  was 
historically  prepared  by  those  elements  of  its  outward  and 
inward  development,  did  Christianity  enter  it :  “  In  the  fulness 
of  the  time  (when  the  time  was  fulfilled)  God  sent  His  Son  ” 
(Gal.  iv.  4).  But  are  we  to  conclude  that  because  Christianity 
had  its  natural  preparations  and  conditions,  it  is  therefore 
essentially  nothing  but  the  natural  unity  of  these  historical 
conditions  ?  In  this  case  the  'pre'parations  for  a  matter  are 
sim^hj  confounded  with  the  generative  cause  of  the  matter  itself;  and 


LECT.  VIII.]  EEFUTATION  OF  THE  TUEBINGEN  THEOEY. 


623 


this  is  a  fallacy  which  can  only  be  perpetrated, by  the  Hegelian 
view  of  history,  wnth  its  aversion  to  the  miraculous.  When 
Christianity  is  once  in  existence,  like  every  other  original 
phenomenon,  it  resembles  the  egg  of  Columbus,  and  may  easily 
be  comprehended  in  its  intrinsic  truth  and  its  grand  simpli¬ 
city,  as  the  goal  towards  wlifch  the  preceding  development  in 
many  ways  was  distinctly  tending.  But  for  all  that  it  remains 
an  original  production,  a  truly  creative,  specifically  new  and 
world-regenerating  principle,  which  carries  the  sufficing  cause 
of  its  existence  in  itself  alone.  It  is  not,  nor  ever  will  be,  pos¬ 
sible  to  compare  the  incomparable.  Critics  may  draw  parallels  as 
they  will  in  every  direction  between  pre-Christian  and  Christian 
truths,  and  search  after  the  elements  preparatory  for  Christi¬ 
anity  ;  yet  always  the  specific  and  cliaracteristic  principle  of 
Christianity  will  be  wanting :  the  idea  of  the  unity  of  God 
and  man  is  foreign  to  the  pre-Christian  w^orld.  St.  Paul’s 
feeling  for  universal  history  can  well  discern  those  preparatory 
elements  in  their  di.spersion  through  the  divine  plan  of  educa¬ 
tion  ;  but  he  would  never  grant  that  the  principle  of  Christi- 
tianity  itself  could  result  from  the  “  weak  and  beggarly 
elements  of  this  world  ”  (Gal.  iv.  3,  9) ;  it  could  only  come  in 
by  a  divine  act,  the  sending  of  God’s  Son. 

Baur  says :  What  long  since  in  various  ways  was  the  goal 
of  all  rational  efforts,  and  of  necessity  forced  itself  upon  the 
consciousness  of  man  as  its  essential  purport,”  at  length  found 
its  natural  expression  in  Christianity.  St.  Paul  says :  “  Eye 
hath  not  seen,  nor  ear  heard,  neither  have  entered  into  the  heart 
of  man,  the  things  which  God  hath  prepared  for  them  that 
love  Him :  but  God  hath  revealed  them  unto  us  by  His 
Spirit”  (1  Cor.  ii.  9,  10).  Baur  himself  seems  at  length  to 
have  felt  that  in  the  face  of  this  truth  all  attempts  at  a 
natural  derivation  are  insufficient ;  for  he  says :  “  That  the 
elements  of  a  new  religious  development,  which  fer  se  were 
already  extant,  should  have  concentrated  themselves  in  the 
generation  of  a  new  life  at  one  particular  point  and  in  one 
'special  individual, — this  is  the  wonder  in  the  history  of  the 
origin  of  Christianity  which  no  historical  reflection  can  further 
analyse.”  And  still  more  would  this  seem  to  be  the  case, 
wdien  he  tells  us  in  another  place  that  he  too  “  acknowledges 
a  certain  supernatural  character  and  a  divine  principle  work- 


524 


PRIMITIVE  CHPJSTIANITY. 


[LECT.  VIII. 


ing  in  an  especial  manner  ”  in  Christianity,  only  not  an 
absolute  miracle  which  should  exclude  all  natural  mediation. 

But  we  have  already  seen  that  real  miracles  do  not 
absolutely  exclude  natural  mediation ;  on  the  contrary,  that 
they  often  are  linked  to  that  which  is  already  extant.  And 
this  was  the  case  with  the  miraculous  entrance  of  Christianity 
into  history.  That  there  was  tinder  enough  laid  ready  we 
willingly  acknowledge,  and  thank  the  man  who  has  pointed 
it  out  to  us  in  detail.  But  as  long  as  we  do  not  recognise 
the  lightning  spark  of  a  supernatural  vital  principle  as  having 
actually  touched  the  inert  mass,  w’e  can  never  understand  the 
fire  which  suddenly  burst  forth  and  set  the  whole  ancient 
world  in  flames ; — we  shall  grope  in  the  dark  as  long  as  we 
seek  its  origin  below  and  not  above. 

Moreover,  the  attempt  to  deny  the  creative  action  of  God 
in  the  origin  of  Christianity,  and  to  reduce  the  supernatural 
to  the  co-operation  of  merely  natural  factors,  likewdse  involves 
the  greatest  historical  dijfficidties  and  aisurdities.  If  the  ivorld 
at  that  time,  toe  ask,  was  pregnant  with  the  new  spiritned 
religion,  why  did  she  so  remorselessly  2}e'>'secide  her  own  offspring  .? 
How  was  it  that  all  nations  did  not  hail  it  with  applause,  and 
rejoice  in  the  new  acquisition  ?  How  -was  it  that  Jews, 
Greeks  and  Homans,  especially  the  great  and  wise  men  of  the 
w'orld,  for  three  centuries  carried  on  the  most  embittered  war¬ 
fare  against  Christianity  with  all  the  available  resources  of 
their  religion,  their  statesmanship,  their  culture,  and  science ; 
and  all  this  in  utter  blindness,  without  seeing,  what  it  was  left 
for  Baur  to  discover,  that  they  were  raging  against  that  which 
w'as  related  to  their  own  flesh  and  blood,  and  had  emanated 
fi'om  it  by  natural  development  ?  Pioman  universalisin  rages 
against  its  Christian  counterpart  with  fire  and  sword.  The 
cultivated  Greek  calls  St.  Paul  a  babbler.  The  thoughtful 
Pioman  designates  Christianity — this  natural  fruit  of  all  past 
culture — as  an  odium  generis  humani,  hated  and  abhorred  by 
the  whole  world.  How  can  this  be  explained  from  the  stand¬ 
point  of  the  Tubingen  School  ?  Here,  if  anywhere,  our  Lord’s' 
words  are  applicable  :  “  If  ye  were  of  the  world,  the  world 
toould  love  his  own]' — had  Christianity  been  a  natural  outflow 
of  the  spirit  of  the  age,  that  age  must  straightway  have 
received  it, — “  but  because  ye  are  not  of  the  world,  but  I  have 


LECT.  VIII.]  EEFUTATIOX  OF  THE  TUEBINGEN  THEORY. 


525 


cliosen  you  out  of  the  world,  therefore  the  world  hateth  you  ” 
(John  XV.  19).  Here  we  find  an  explanation  of  this  hatred. 
The  Tubingen  School  can  give  us  none. 

We  obtain  just  as  little  satisfaction  when  we  ask  to  be 
enlightened  as  to  the  Person  of  Christ  and  His  characteristic 
consciousness.  In  this  matter  the  historical  school  is  very 
cautious  and  reserved ;  and  it  is  not  without  cause  that 
Strauss  reproaches  Baur  with  asking,  “not  what  Jesus  really 
did  or  said,  but  what  the  narrators  make  him  do  and  say  ;  thus 
he  busies  himself  with  the  Gospels,  but  leaves  the  Lord  out  of 
the  question.”  However,  we  have  already  seen  that  thus 
much  is  evident,  that  Baur  admits  as  the  historical  purport  of 
the  life  of  Christ  nothing  but  a  career  entirely  devoid  of 
miracles,  and  likewise  in  His  Person  only  such  moral  perfection 
as  shall  not  exceed  the  measure  of  natural  humanity.  In 
order  to  carry  out  his  views,  the  Tubingen  critic  is  compelled 
to  reduce  all  that  is  supernatural  in  the  discourses  of  Christ 
to  mere  natural  truths,  and  to  change  divine  revelations  into 
natural  conditions  of  human  moral  consciousness.  It  is 
self-evident  that  the  most  arbitrary  means  must  be  used  in 
order  everywhere  to  prove  the  “  purely  moral  ”  character  of 
this  doctrine,  and  especially  that  the  importayice  of  Christ's 
Person  for  the  neio  redemption  that  had  noio  appeared  must 
be  entirely  ignored.  Hence  the  passages  in  which  salvation 
appears  linked  to  this  particular  Person,  and  which  cannot 
possibly  be  applied  to  the  mere  generality  of  a  moral  relation¬ 
ship,  must  be  attributed  to  the  conceptions  of  a  later  age,  which 
influenced  the  pseudo-evangelist.  What  shall  we  say,  e.g., 
when  Baur  explains  the  beatitudes  to  the  efiect  that  they 
express  “  the  still  undeveloped  pure  sense  of  a  need  for 
redemption”?  Just  as  if  the  pure  sense  of  hunger  contained 
in  itself  all  the  reality  of  its  appeasing !  Everything  must  be 
already  extant,  so  that  we  may  not  have  to  acknowledge  any¬ 
thing  ajisolutely  new  or  supernatural.  Even  Baur’s  example 
plainly  shows  that  all  attempts  to  give  a  natural  explanation 
of  the  supernatural  must  lead  to  unnatural  or  at  least  ambigu¬ 
ous  expedients. 

If  the  essential  substance  of  the  self-consciousness  of  Christ 
consisted  merely  in  general  principles  of  human  morality,  tlien 
we  find  the  same  historical  difficulties,  the  same  unexplained 


526 


PEIISIITIVE  CIIRI3TIAXITY. 


[LECT.  VIII. 


and  incxplicahle  residuum,  'vvliicli,  as  we  liave  already  seen, 
form  an  insurmountable  barrier  for  all  the  anti-miraculous 
accounts  of  the  life  of  Christ.  They  amount  to  these  two 
questions :  How  could  these  simple  moral  maxims  bring  about 
that  universal  revolution  in  the  religious  life  and  thought  of  the 
whole  world  ?  And  again,  If  Jesus  ivas  conscious  of  being  a  merely 
natural  man,  how  could  the  belief  in  His  Messiahship  arise  cither 
in  Himself  or  His  disciples  ?  Here  Baur  shows  himself  a  true 
Hegelian.  The  Messiahship  of  Christ  became  a  firmly  estab¬ 
lished  fact  of  His  consciousness  after  others  had  “  intuitively 
seen  ”  in  Him  the  Messiah.  And  how  so  ?  The  universally 
moral  and  purely  spiritual  substance  of  the  consciousness  of 
Christ  needed  a  distinct  /arm,  in  order  that  “  through  the 
medium  of  Jewish  national  consciousness  it  might  be  able  to 
expand  into  universal  consciousness.”  ^  And  this  concrete 
form  was  the  Messianic  idea.  Now,  because  the  substance  of 
Christ’s  consciousness  was  universal,  but  its  form  was  affected 
with  the  partiality  of  Judaism,  therefore  the  personality  of 
Jesus  is  to  be  considered  “  in  the  light  of  a  contradiction — as 
a  developing  process  ” — and  an  inward  conflict,  in  wdiich  “  the 
two  opposing  elements  are  related  to  each  other  as  substance 
to  form,  as  idea  to  reality,  as  universal  humanity  to  Jewish 
nationality,  as  divine  sublimity  to  human  limitation.”  In 
answer  to  this  monstrous  conception,  it  has  well  been  pointed 
out,®  that  the  effectiveness  in  the  character  and  work  of  great 
men  always  consisted,  not  in  a  dualism,  but  in  a  harmonious 
unison  between  substance  and  form  ;  and  that  classical  natures 
have  always  been  entire,  complete,  and  self-contained  ones 
(cf  pp.  36  7  et  ss.).  And  how  inconceivable  is  the  way  in  which 
Baur  rends  asunder  form  and  substance  of  the  self-conscious¬ 
ness,  as  though  the  form  suddenly  appeared  and  enveloped  the 
substance,  instead  of  each  being  generated  in  and  with  the 
other !  But  if  the  form  be  original,  that  is  to  say,  if  the 
Messianic  idea  belong  to  the  essential  and  original  substance 
of  the  self-consciousness  of  Christ,  how  can  this  be  reduced  to 
mere  human  dimensions  ?  It  is  the  old  story ;  the  Hegelian 
must  always  have  two  aspects  or  factors  in  order  to  evolve 
from  their  unity  and  diversity  the  needful  categories  of  position 
and  negation,  idea  and  reality,  etc.  etc.,  as  reels  on  wdiich  to 
^  Die  Tdlinjer  hchule,  2d  ed.  pp.  30  et  ss.  *  Cf.  Be'ckh,  vbi  svp. 


LECT.  VIII.]  IIEFCTATIOX  OF  THE  TUEBIXGEN  THEORY.  527 

spin  the  threads  of  historical  development.  How  useless  these 
are,  even  from  a  psychological  point  of  view,  we  have  here  seen. 

Just  as  little,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  lelief  of  the  clisciijles 
explained.  How  came  the  Messianic  idea  to  be  applied  to 
Christ  if  He  was  a  mere  man  and  did  no  miracles  ?  Whence 
the  entire  origin  of  the  new  religion  if  it  had  no  particular 
facts,  but  only  general  moral  discourses  for  its  foundation  ? 
“  If  a  religion  do  not  begin  with  an  original  fact,  it  cannot 
begin  at  all,”  says  Schleiermacher  {Kcden  iiber  die  Religion)-,  “for 
there  must  be  some  common  reason  for  the  sake  of  which  a 
certain  religious  element  is  especially  emphasized,  and  this 
reason  can  only  consist  in  a  fact.”  Whence  arose  the  belief 
of  the  disciples  in  the  divine  Sonship  of  Christ  ?  And  if  it 
were  a  mere  idea,  a  later  conception,  whence  its  transmutation 
into  facts  in  the  shape  of  so  many  miraculous  narratives  ? 
Whence- — as  we  have  already  asked,  without  receiving  a 
satisfactory  answer — the  belief  of  the  disciples  in  the  resur¬ 
rection  of  Christ,  if  this  was  not  a  fact  ?  Whence  St.  Paul’s 
testimony  to  it,  even  in  the  Epistles  which  Eaur  recognises  as 
genuine  ?  Whence  the  sudden  inward  chcinge  in  Said  if  the 
risen  Saviour  did  not  meet  him  in  the  way  to  Damascus  ?  We 
have  seen  that  it  is  impossible  to  explain  away  this  event  as 
a  merely  inward  vision.  Baur  is  here  in  <  great  straits,  and 
feels  what  a  large  unexplained  residuum  is  left  after  all  his 
attempts  at  natural  explanations.  Hence  the  confession  in  his 
last  book,  that  the  conversion  of  St.  Paul  was  a  “  wonder,”  and 
that  “  no  anal3"sis,  either  psychological  or  dialectic,  can  clear 
up  the  mystery  of  that  act  in  which  God  revealed  His  Son  in 
Paul.” 

Einally,  we  come  to  Baur’s  theory,  that  it  was  St.  Paul  who 
liberated  Christianity  from  the  limitations  of  Judaism  and 
raised  it  to  the  dignity  of  the  universal  religion ;  because  in 
him  first  “  the  principle  of  Christianity  became  purely  and 
absolutely  predominant”  (fDer  Jpostel  Paidus,  p.  512).  If, 
then,  he  was  in  fact  the  founder  of  Christianit)^  as  a  world¬ 
wide  power,  hoio  comes  he  constantly  to  refer  all  his  teaching 
and  all  his  hnoiolcdge  to  the  crucified  and  risen  Christ  ?  (“  I 

determined  not  to  know  anything  among  you,  save  Jesus 
Christ  and  Him  crucified,”  1  Cor.  ii.  2.)  Whence  his  plain 
declaration,  “  We  preach  not  ourselves,  hut  Christ  Jesus  the 


523 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY. 


[LECT.  VIIL 


Lord  ”  (2  Cor.  iv.  5)  ;  and  that,  "  Other  foundation  can  no  man 
lay  than  that  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ”  ?  (1  Cor.  iii.  11.) 
How  can  we  account  for  his  testimony  that  he  had  become 
what  he  was  .only  through  Christ,  and  had  only  begun  his  new 
course  after  having  been  apprehended  by  Him  ?  (Phil.  iii.  7-14, 
iv.  13.)  How  is  it  that  he  constantly  puts  back  his  own 
personality  behind  that  of  Christ,  that  He  only  may  be 
preached  (Phil  i.  18),  and  is  ever  looking  forward  to  the  day 
of  Christ  ?  Surely  the  apostle  W’ho  (Gal.  i.  8)  pronounces 
even  an  angel  from  heaven  accursed  if  he  preach  any  other 
gospel  tlian  that  of  Christ,  would  have  declined  the  honour 
of  being  regarded  as  the  inventor  of  a  new  Christianity ;  nay, 
rather  would  have  indignantly  repelled  the  reproach  of  having 
disfigured,  or  at  least  essentially  altered,  the  gospel  of  Christ 
by  his  doctrine.  What,  then,  is  St.  Paid  without  Christ  ?  Why 
are  we  now  Christians  and  not  Paulinists  ?  And  wdiy  did  not 
the  apostles  and  primitive  Christians,  if  they  were  nothing 
but  Jews,  not  remain  such  ? 

Clearly,  the  chief  motive  which  impels  Baur  to  refer  as 
much  as  possible  of  primitive  Christianity  to  the  autliorship 
ot  St.  Paul,  is  again  only  his  aversion  to  the  miraculous.  For 
in  him  he  has  a  purely  human  actor,  and  has  no  need,  step 
by  step,  to  explain  away  the  supernatural  element  which 
shines  forth  so  strongly  in  the  person  and  work  of  Christ. 
Tlie  more  he  can  put  upon  St.  Paul,  the  less  remains  for 
Christ,  and  the  easier  is  it  to  draw  Him  into  the  current  of 
universal  human  development.  Even  Penan  remarks  on  this 
subject ;  “  Since  we  know  infinitely  more*  of  Paul  than  of  the 
twelve ;  since  we  possess  his  authentic  writings  and  original 
records,  we  make  him  of  the  first  importance,  almost  more 
than  Jesus.  This  is  a  mistake.  Nothing  can  be  more  false 
than  the  fashionable  notion  of  our  day,  that  Paul  WAas  the 
author  of  Christianity.  The  true  founder  of  Christianity  w’as 
Jesus.”  ^ 

^  The  Apostles,  p.  3.  We  do  not,  however,  for  a  moment  mean  to  compare 
this  miserable  production  of  Renan’s  with  the  investigations  of  Baur,  which  will 
ever  continue  to  be  of  the  greatest  scientific  value.  For  Renan  immediately  pro¬ 
ceeds  to  exhibit  his  utter  incapacity  for  historical  insight  into  the  real  nature  of 
primitive  Christianity,  by  adding  :  “St.  Paul  cannot  be  compared  either  with 
Jesus  or  his  immediate  disciples  (not  even  avith  the  apostles  then  !).  The  first 
places  (after  Jesus)  must  be  reserved  lor  those  great  companions  of  Jesus,  and 


LECT.  VIII.]  EEEUTATIOX  OF  THE  TUEBINGEN  TIIEOBY. 


529 


In  view  of  all  these  unsolved  difficulties,  one  can  hardly 
escape  the  conclusion,  that  the  “  construction'  of  history  by  the 
critical  school  makes  historical  enigmas  instead  of  explaining 
them.  This  is  confirmed  by  Baur’s  account  of  the  a'postolic 
age  and  its  antitheses. 

If  primitive  Christianity  was  only  a  species  of  Judaism,  its 
historical  development  presents  a  series  of  insoluble  enigmas. 
This  will  become  evident  from  a  consideration  of  the  two 
fundamental  suppositions  on  which  Baur’s  entire  criticism 
rests,  viz.  that  a  sharp  rivalry  existed  between  the  Petrine  and 
the  Paidine  party,  and  that  the  primitive  Christians  did  not 
believe  in  the  Godhead  of  Christ. 

We  first  consider  the  former  of  these  suppositions.  Did 
this  antithesis  between  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christianity  really 
govern  the  whole  Church  ?  If  this  was  the  case,  that  is  to 
say,  if  the  development  of  primitive  Christianity  consisted  of 
a  struggle  between  contraries,  which  were  for  long  engaged  in 
an  irreconcilable  conflict,  and  did  not  coalesce  until  towards 
the  latter  part  of  the  second  century,  then  it  is  an  enigma  that 
they  should  ever  have  coalesced  at  all.  Had  so  important  a 
difference  of  principles  existed  within  the  apostolic  Church,  it 
must  assuredly  have  separated  into  tivo  distinct  parties,  which 
would  never  again  have  united.  The  Petrine  party  would 
always  have  appealed  to  St.  Peter,  the  Pauline  to  St.  Paul, 
just  as  to  this  day,  three  centuries  and  a  half  since  the  Eefor- 
mation,  the  Lutherans  appeal  to  Luther,  and  the  Calvinists  to 
Calvin,  although  their  doctrinal  differences  as  to  the  presence 
of  Christ  in  the  sacrament,  etc.,  are  far  less  important  tlian 
was  the  matter  in  dispute  between  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  viz. 
whether  the  Jews  who  became  Christians  should  be  compelled 
to  be  circumcised,  and  therefore  to  keep  the  whole  law,  or  not. 
History  often  teaches  us  that  ivhat  ivas  origincdly  one,  may 
separede  into  various  parts  (as,  e.g.,  the  Baptists  and  the  Metho¬ 
dists  have  split  into  various  distinct  denominations),  bid  not 
vice  versa,  thed  coonmunitics  which  were  origincdly  separated  by 

iliose,  2'>asslonately  moved  and  faith  fid  ivomen  {amies)  who,  in  spite  of  death,  be¬ 
lieved  on  him  !  !  ”  Assuredly  Hanr’s  theory  is  grand  compared  with  snch  non¬ 
sense  as  this,  according  to  which  JMary  Magdalene  is  greater,  and  has  done  more 
tor  Christianity,  than  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  ! 


PEIMITIVE  CIIPvISTIANITY. 


530 


[lECT.  VIII. 


reason  of  the  different  principles  of  their  founders  should 
afterwards  coalesce  into  one  hody. 

It  was  perfectly  natural  and  necessary  that  Jews  and 
Gentiles  who  were  converted  to  Christianity  could  not  all  at 
once  discard  the  influences  of  their  past  history,  and  that  some 
time  must  elapse  before  they  could  stand  on  equal  terms  with 
each  other.  It  was  also  very  natural  that  differences  should 
occur  in  the  apostolic  treatment  of  the  Gentiles.  Nor  is  this 
at  all  concealed  by  the  Acts  and  Epistles.^  But  distinctions 
are  not  antitheses^  and  there  are  weighty  testimonies  contained 
in  the  New  Testament  which  go  to  prove  that  these  distinc¬ 
tions  were  amicably  adjusted  in  Irotherly  unity  as  early  as  the 
apostolic  age.  In  Acts  xv.  the  whole  assembly  at  Jerusalem, 
consisting  of  Peter  and  Paul,  together  with  James  and  all  the 
other  apostles  and  elders,  agree  together  “  to  lay  no  greater 
burden  ”  upon  the  Gentiles  who  were  baptized  by  requiring 
them  to  keep  the  law  of  Moses.  Baur  gets  over  this  difficulty 
by  declaring  the  Acts  to  be  a  spurious  book,  written  with  the 
intention  of  mediating  between  the  opposed  parties.  But  he 
cannot  get  rid  of  the  passage  (ii.  9)  in  the  confessedly  genuine 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  where  St.  Paul  says  that  James, 
Peter,  and  John,  i.c.  the  heads  of  the  Jewish-Christian  party, 

when  they  perceived  the  grace  that  was  given  unto  me,  gave 
to  me  and  Barnabas  the  right  hands  of  fellowship,  that  we 
should  go  unto  the  heathen  and  they  unto  the  circumcision.” 
Does  this  betoken  rivalry,  or  brotherly  unity  ?  True,  St.  Paul 
is  obliged  severely  to  reprove  St.  Peter,  because  at  Antioch  he 

^  Cf.  especially  Gal.  ii.  12,  whicli  tells  how  St.  Peter  allows  himself  to  he 
moved  for  a  time  to  dfeny  his  lormer  intercourse  with  the  Gentiles  by  the  arrival 
of  “  certain  that  came  from  James,”  i.e.  legal  Jewish  Christians  from  the  church 
at  Jerusalem. 

®  Not  even  the  simply  practical  teaching  of  St.  James’s  Epistle  exhibits  a 
fundamentally  diflerent  conception  of  Christianity  from  that  of  St.  Paul.  The 
conviction  is  becoming  more  and  more  widespread,  that  St.  James,  having  other 
opponents,  was  obliged  to  emphasize  a  diflerent  aspect  of  the  Christian  life  to 
that  principally  described  by  St.  Paul  in  his  doctrine  of  justification,  but  that 
both  of  them  clearly  distinguish  between  the  inward  reconciliation  with  God  by 
His  grace  through  faith  (attainment  of  the  righteousness  which  is  by  faith),  and 
the  outward  verification  of  this  faith  by  means  of  decisive  proofs  (works).  The 
diflerence  lies  in  the  languarje  used  by  each,  inasmuch  as  what  St.  Paul  usually 
designates  as  “being  saved”  e.g.  Eph.  ii.  8),  is  expi’essed  by  St. 

James  in  the  word  whiidi  St.  Paul  generally  applies  to  the  first  act  of  the  Chris* 
tian  course  (to  be  justified,  ItKatoZc^ai). 


LECT.  VIII.]  EEEUTATION  OF  THE  TUEBINGEN  THEORY.  531 

hypocritically  gave  himself  the  appearance  of  one  who  avoided 
intercourse  with  the  Gentiles,  whereas  he  had  loner  since 
carried  it  on.  But  St.  Paul  evidently  speaks  of  him  as  one 
who  was  hitherto  of  the  same  opinion  wuth  himself,  and  had 
now  become  untrue  to  his  convictions ;  and  for  this  very 
reason  St.  Peter  could  not  answer  him.  St.  Paul  says  (Gal. 
ii.  14  and  18),  “  If  thou,  being  a  Jew,  livest  after  the  manner 
of  Gentiles,  and  not  as  do  the  Jews,  why  compellest  thou  the 
Gentiles  to  live  as  do  the  Jews  ?  .  .  .  For  if  I  build  aurain 
the  things  which  I  destroyed,  I  make  myself  a  transgressor.” 
These  words  evidently  presuppose  that  at  first  St.  Peter  took 
up  the  same  position  in  regard  to  the  Jews  as  St.  Paul,  and  that 
onlv  in  this  single  instance,  IxOm  a  lear  of  man  which  he  more 
than  once  evinces,  he  weakly  gave  way  to  the  Jewish  Chris¬ 
tians  who  had  come  from  James,  and  inconsistently  withdrew 
from  intercourse  with  the  Geiitiles.  But  on  two  previous 
occasions  (Acts  xi.  4  et  ss.  and  xv.  7  et  ss.),  he  had  openly 
defended  this  intercourse,  and  maintained  the  equality  of  Jews 
and  Gentiles  in  virtue  of  the  one  faith. 

We  willingly  admit  that  the  opinion  of  the  oldest  Jewish- 
Christian  churches,  and  of  their  leaders,  St.  Peter  and  St. 
James,  may  have  undergone  various  modifications.  For  clearly 
the  position  which  for  some  time  seems  to  have  been  taken 
up  by  St.  Peter,  that  the  Jewish  Christians  were  to  keep  the 
law,  whereas  the  Gentiles  were  freed  from  it,  was  undecided, 
it  not  confused.  It  may  be  that,  after  the  apostolic  council 
related  in  Acts  xv.,  a  certain  reaction  was  brought  about  by 
the  strictly  legal  party,  so  that  many  repented  of  the  conces¬ 
sion  made  to  their  Gentile  brethren,  and  that  this  caused  a 
-wavering  in  the  behaviour  of  Peter  and  James.  For  we  have 
indications  elsewhere  of  a  variety  of  parties  amongst  the 
Jewish  Christians,  whereas  there  is  not  a  trace  in  the  whole 
New  Testament  of  sects  properly  so  called,  i.e.  of  ecclesiastical 
schisms,  nor  yet  of  a  heretical  Jewish  Christianity.  But,  on 
the  supposition  that  these  different  tendencies  existed,  the 
behaviour  of  the  Jewish  apostles  as  related  in  Gal.  ii.  may 
very  well  be  reconciled  wuth  the  position  taken  up  by  them 
in  Acts  xv.^  These  very  fluctuations  prove  that  there  was  no 

^  See  the  convincing  demonstration  of  this  by  Lechler,  Das  apostolische  u. 
nachapostolische  Zeitalier. 


532 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY. 


[LECT.  VIIL 


fundamental  contradiction  between  them  and  St.  Paul,  and 
that  it  is  fcdse  to  o'ciorcscnt  the  senior  apostles  as  occupying  an 
entirely  Jcioish  standpoint.  For  how  could  they  then  have 
formally  acknowledged  St.  Paul  as  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles, 
endowed  with  apostolic  gifts,  and  in  consideration  of  this  have 
given  him  “  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  ”  ?  Surely  this 
would  have  been  mean  hypocrisy.  And  how  could  they  have 
guictly  looked  on  whilst  St.  Paul  converted  the  heathen  in  a 
way  so  at  variance  with  their  convictions  ?  And  St.  Paul 
himself,  too,  who  on  other  occasions  (as  e.g.  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Galatians)  opposed  the  extreme  Judaists  so  vigorously, 
would  assuredly  not  have  been  silent  had  the  other  apostles 
been  essentially  on  a  level  with  them.  And  how  could  this 
inimical  rivalry  be  reconciled  with  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  who  was  to  lead  the  apostles  into  all  truth  ?  Or,  as 
the  critical  school  does  not  acknowledge  His  action,  we  ask 
how,  on  the  same  supposition,  can  wm  explain  the  constant 
communion  which  St.  Paul  kept  up  with  the  church  at  Jeru¬ 
salem,  and  the  faithful  care  for  their  wmiits  wdiich  he  cease¬ 
lessly  exercised  by  frequent  collections  for  Jerusalem  amongst 
the  Gentile  Christian  churches?  (Gal.  ii.  10  ;  Eom.  x.  25  et  ss. ; 
1  Cor.  xvi.  ;  2  Cor.  viii.  and  ix.  ;  Acts  xi.  29,  30,  xii.  25.) 
When  w^e  see  the  Gentile  Christians  in  Antioch,  Macedonia, 
Greece,  ministering  joyfully,  and  often  “  beyond  their  power” 
(2  Cor.  viii.  2-4),  to  the  wmnts  of  the  church  in  Judaea,  does 
this  betoken  fundamental  differences,  or  brotherly  love  and 
unity  ? 

Jewish  and  Gentile  Christianity  are  two  forms  of  the  same 
spirit  which  supplement  each  other ;  they  make  up  a  unity 
which  soon  enough  was  definitely  exhibited  in  the  persons  of 
the  chief  apostles,  though  after  certain  fluctuations.  Nor  docs 
the  question  as  to  the  treatment  of  Gentile  Christians  constitute 
an  original  and  fundamental  contrariety  luithin  the  apostolic 
circle ;  they  are  csscnticdly  unanimous  upon  the  suhjcct.  Only 
St.  Fend  and  the  Gentile-Christian  party  made  more  rapid  pro^ 
gress  in  the  direction  of  a  free  universalism  than  did  the  Jewish 
Christians,  especially  St.  James  and  the  church  in  Jerusalem, 
which,  as  long  as  the  temple  stood  (in  wdiich  Christ  Himself  had 
taught),  continued  to  pray  there,  and  to  take  part  in  the  jMosaic 
worship.  It  was  therefore  quite  another  thing  for  them  to  tear 


LECT.  VIIL]  refutation  OF  THE  TUEBINGEN  THEORY.  533 

themselves  away  from  Judaism  than  for  the  Gentile  Christians, 
who  had  no  temple  and  no  Jewish  liistory  to  look  hack  upon. 
Hence  the  development  of  primitive  Christianity  pjrocjresscd  not 
in  contrarieties,  hut  in  steps :  ^  whilst  one  part  soon  went  for¬ 
ward  more  quickly,  the  other  slower  one  tenaciously  clung  to 
a  lower  step,  until  at  length,  through  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
•salem  and  the  annihilation  of  the  temple,  even  the  blindest 
eyes  were  opened. 

The  first  stage  in  the  development  of  primitive  Christianity 
may  he  considered  to  extend  from  the  feast  of  Pentecost  down 
to  the  persecution  to  which  Stephen  fell  victim.  At  this 
time  the  great  body  of  the  Church  consisted  of  baptized  Jews. 
Doubtless,  however,  there  were  among  these  many  Hellenists 
(Greek  Jews,  called  in  the  Authorized  Version  “Grecians,” 
Acts  vi.  1)  ;  even  the  seven  almoners  ifhidi)  all  having  Greek 
names.  During  this  first  period  the  opposition  against  the 
Pharisees,  then  the  ruling  Jewish  party,  had  developed  most 
vigorously  within  the  Church,  as  we  see  from  the  speech  of 
Stephen.  Even  at  this  stage  Christianity  is  by  no  means 
merely  a  form  of  Judaism.  Baur  admits  that  the  first  Chris¬ 
tians  recognised  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  In  conjunction  with 
this,  we  must  believe  that  all  the  wondrous  fulness  which  to 
the  Jew  lay  in  the  idea  of  the  Messiah  was  transferred  to  Him. 
This  one  point,  the  belief  in  the  Messiah  who  had  already 
appeared,  was  sufficient  to  make  the  disciples  in  every  respect 
different  from  ordinary  Jews.  The  Messianic  expectation  was 
the  culminating  point  of  their  religious  consciousness  as  Jews  ; 
and  if  an  alteration  took  place  in  this  climax,  then  their  re¬ 
ligious  consciousness  must  have  undergone  an  essential  change 
in  every  way;  Baur  himself  admits  that  by  their  acknow¬ 
ledgment  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  even  after  His  death  on  the 
cross,  they  had  substantially  broken  through  the  limitations  of 
Judaism, — an  admission,  however,  which  he  does  not  care  to 
follow  out.  A  church  that  has  been  baptized  by  the  Spirit, 
in  the  name  of  the  triune  God,  and  which,  to  the  great 
annoyance  of  the  Jews,  confesses  a  crucified  Messiah,  is 
assuredly  no  longer  a  mere  development  of  Judaism,  but  some¬ 
thing  specifically  new. 

^  Thus  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  clearly  indicates  a  progress  in  his 
etandpoint.  Even  that  ot  St.  James  is  no  longer  specifically  Judaistie. 


534 


PKnriTIVE  CimiSTIAXITY. 


[lECT.  VIII. 


The  germs,  too,  of  a  catliolic  conception  of  the  Church  were 
not  MAantimr  amongst  the  first  Jewish  Christians :  on  the  con- 
traiy,  they  showed  great  vigour  from  the  very  beginning, 
though  afterwards  for  a  time  somewhat  pushed  into  the  back¬ 
ground.  This  can  only  be  denied  by  those  who  reject  the 
history  of  the  feast  of  Pentecost,  related  in  Acts  ii.,  as  without 
historical  foundation.  Even  on  this  the  day  of  her  institution 
the  Christian  Church  shows  herself  as  a  missionary  Church, 
which  is  commissioned  to  proclaim  the  great  deeds  of  God  to 
all  nations  (Acts  ii.  9-1 1).  Wherefore  should  not  the  idea 
that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  to  be  extended  far  beyond  the 
boundaries  of  Israel  have  been  introduced  before  the  appear¬ 
ance  of  St.  Paul  ?  Had  not  our  Lord  commanded  the  eleven, 
and  that  long  before  the  conversion  of  St.  Paul,  “  Go  ye  and 
teach  all  nations  ”  ?  Indeed,  from  the  very  beginning  He  had 
spoken  of  them  as  “  the  salt  of  the  earth  ”  and  "  the  light  of 
the  iDorld"  (Matt.  v.  13  and  14) ;  He  had  told  them  that  He 
had  other  sheep  who  were  not  of  this  fold  (John  xv.)  ;  He  had 
testified  to  the  Jews  that  men  should  “  come  from  the  east 
and  from  the  west,  from  the  north  and  from  the  south,  and  sit 
down  in  the  kingdom  of  God”  (Matt.  viii.  11 ;  Luke  xiii.  29) ; 
indeed.  He  had  even  roundly  declared  to  them  that  the  kingdom 
of  God  should  be  taken  from  them  and  given  to  the  Gentiles 
(Matt.  xxi.  43,  etc.).  Did  not  all  this  clearly  enough  indicate 
the  ivorlcl-embracing  nature  of  the  kingdom  of  God Had  He 
not  even  gone  amongst  Samaritans  and  into  heathen  border¬ 
lands  (Matt.  iv.  15,  XV.  21),  although  He  was  primarily  sent 
only  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel  ?  Could  not 
such  conduct  on  the  part  of  their  Master  have  implanted 
germs  of  a  wider  idea  of  the  divine  kingdom  in  the  hearts  of 
the  first  disciples  ?  Hay,  more.  Had  not  long  since  innu¬ 
merable  sayings  of  the  prophets  predicted  the  reception  of  the 
heathen  into  the  kingdom  of  God?  (Micah  iv.  1-4;  Isa.  ii. 
2-4,  xix.  18-25,  lx.— Ixvi.  etc.;  Ps.  xxii.  28  et  ss.,  IxxxviL 
xevi.  xcvii.  etc.;  cf.  Luke  ii.  32,  Matt.  ii.  1  et  ss.,  xii.  21.) 
Are  we  to  suppose  that  all  these  were  lost  upon  the  first 
Jewish  Christians  ?  By  whom  else  were  they  to  be  lulfilled  than 
by  ihe  Messiah  and  His  kingdom  ?  and  Him  they  believed  to 
have  come.  Hot  only  is  the  idea  of  a  universal  kingdom  of 
God  older  than  St.  Paul,  but  even  than  the  Homan  empire  to 


LECT.  VIII.]  REFUTATION  OF  THE  TUEBINGEN  THEORY.  535 

which  Baur  wishes  to  bind  it  down.  This  idea  is  a  necessary 
consequence  ot  Monotheism,  and,  like  it,  has  sprung  up  on  the 
soil  of  divine  revelation. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  germs  of  Christian  nniversalism  were 
extant  from  the  very  outset.  But  the  apostles  had  received 
the  command  to  begin  tlieir  preaching  at  Jerusalem  (Luke 
xxiv.  47  ;  Acts  i.  8),  and  it  was  therefore  necessary  that  they 
should  first  fulfil  their  mission  lor  Israel. 

The  second  stage  includes  the  period  from  the  death  of 
Stephen  to  the  appearance  of  St.  Paul.  Foreigners  are  ad¬ 
mitted  to  the  Church  ;  many  Samaritans  believe  through  the 
preaching  of  St.  Pliilip ;  St.  Peter  baptizes  the  Ptoman  Cor¬ 
nelius  and  his  house  after  he  ha'd  been  convinced  by  the 
vision  of  the  clean  and  unclean  animals  (Acts  x.  11  et  ss.), 
that  “in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  God  and  worketh 
righteousness  is  accepted  with  Ifim ;  ”  the  gospel  penetrates 
to  Antioch,  from  which  place  the  name  of  Christian  is  spread 
abroad.  In  this  period  the  Clmrch  became  aware  that  the 
Gentiles  were  noio  already  called  to  share  in  Clirist’s  salvation, 
and  that  without  becoming  Jews  by  circumcision. 

In  the  third  stage  we  see  the  Church  acting  out  this  con¬ 
viction  with  more  and  more  decision,  and  endeavouring:  to 
develope  her  unity  and  self-dependerice  by  reconciling  her 
internal  differences.  The  chief  part  in  this  work  was  reserved 
for  the  spirit  that  rose  from  the  ashes  ot  Stephen.  St.  Taid 
looks  at  the  distinction  between  the  Old  and  the  New  Covenant 
rather  as  one  of  hind  than  one  of  degree,  as  the  other  apostles 
at  first  conceived  it.  He  considers  this  difference  in  the  liuht 
of  an  antithesis,  and  contrasts  Christ  with  Moses,  as  being  the 
new  and  the  only  way  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  law, — indeed, 
as  “  the  end  of  the  law.”  He  teaches  clearly  and  pointedly 
that  salvation  is  now  to  be  found  in  the  gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ  alone,  and  not  in  the  law ;  and  that  because  this  salva¬ 
tion  is  granted  oidy  through  grace,  it  is  destined  for  the  Gen¬ 
tiles  as  well  as  the  Jews,  although  it  must  first  be  proclaimed 
to  the  latter  (Acts  xiii,  46).  Here,  then,  the  fidl  universalist 
stand, point  of  Christianity  was  attained. 

This  view  of  primitive  Christianity  has  been  successfully 
defended  against  Baur  by  our  present  historical  and  exegetical 
tlieology;  and  you  can  easily  see  how  naturtdly  everything  is 


o36 


rrJMITlVE  CHltlSTIAXITY. 


[lECT.  VIII, 


here  developed.  True,  no  development  can  take  place  with¬ 
out  the  tension  and  reconciliation  of  contrarieties.  '  This  is  the 
truth  of  Baur’s  fundamental  axiom.  But  it  is  not  fair  to 
exnwerate  the  differences,  and  still  less  to  introduce  dissen- 
sions  of  Icder  date  into  the  apostolic  age.  Now  Baur  is  guilty 
of  so  doing,  for  he  has  simply  transferred  the  party  divisions 
of  the  second  century  back  to  the  first.  This  is  a  fundamental 
error  both  in  his  view's  as  to  primitive  Christianity  and  in  his 
criticism  of  the  New'  Testament  writinjis.  After  the  death  of 
the  leading  apostles,  follow'ed  by  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  erection  of  a  Bomish  colony  (A31ia  Capitolina)  in  its 
place,  Jewdsh  Christianity  lost  its  original  pre-eminence,  and 
was  gradually  separated  from  the  current  of  development. 
Then,  and  not  till  then,  did  it  begin  to  fall  into  heresy  and 
separate  itself  from  the  Catholic  Church,  wdiereupon  it  soon 
split  into  different  sects  through  the  influence  of  the  extreme 
party  mentioned  in  Acts  xv.  5,  Gal.  ii.  4.  But  during  the 
lifetime  of  the  apostles,  the  milder  party  of  Jewush  Christians 
had  been  in  the  ascendant  (Acts  xv.  22  et  ss.),  and  had  come 
to  an  agreement  on  the  principal  question,  viz.  the  position  of 
Gentile  Christians  w'ith  respect  to  the  law.^  A  breach  amongst 
the  apostles  on  account  of  this  matter  w'ould  assuredly  have 
exercised  a  most  paralysing  influence  on  the  development  of 
Christianity.  But  instead  of  thi.s,  w'e  find  that,  w'hen  they 
leave  the  scene,  the  Church  had  already  growm  so  strong  that 
the  subsequent  separation  of  Jewush  sects  was  unable  percep¬ 
tibly  to  impede  the  universal  progress  of  Christianity. 

History  everywdiere  teaches  us  that  each  great  new  truth 
needs  some  time  before  it  can  make  its  w'ay  and  scatter  the 
old  prejudices.  In  this  case,  moreover,  the  emancipation  from 
the  Jewdsh  law  must  needs  be  all  the  more  gradual,  inasmuch 
as  the  new  religion  w'as  also  the  fulfilment  of  the  old  one.  If 
w'e  keep  this  in  mind,  we  shall  perfectly  well  be  able  to  com¬ 
prehend  the  development  of  the  primitive  Christian  Church ; 
nor  w'ill  there  be  any  need  for  us  to  rend  asunder  into  hostile 
parties  that  pious  company,  for  wdiom  the  Lord  Himself  had 
prayed  that  they  might  be  one,  even  as  He  wms  one  with  the 
Father. 

We  come  to  the  second  axiom  of  Baur’s  criticism,  Avhich 
•  Cf,  the  article  on  “Ehionites  ”  in  Herzog’s  Realencyclopadle^  iii.  pp.  C21  et  ss. 


LECT.  VIIL]  EEEUTxVTION  OF  THE  TUEBINGEN  THEORY.  537 

maintains  tliat  the  primitive  Christians  did  not  hclicve  in  the 
Godhead  oj  Christ,  and  that  therefore  all  those  writings  in  the 
New  Testament  which  contain  this  doctrine  in  a  highly  de¬ 
veloped  form  are  co  ipso  spnrious,  and  of  post-apostolic  origin. 
To  this  we  answer,  that  even  those  five  hooks  ivhich  Baur  ac¬ 
knowledges  as  genuine  (Eomans,  1st  and  2d  Corinthians,  Gala¬ 
tians,  and  Eevelation),  and  not  only  those  which  he  snjpooses  to 
have  originated  at  a  later  period  (Ephesians,  Ehilippians, 
Colossians,  and  especially  the  Gospel  of  St.  John),  contain  a 
conception  of  Christ  ivhich  lifts  Him  entirely  above  the  level  of 
a  mere  man,  and  places  Him  in  a  perfectly  unique  relationship)  to 
God.  It  is  impossible  to  set  np  an  impassable  barrier  between 
the  Christology  of  the  former  and  that  of  the  latter  set  of 
writings,  or  to  prove  that  the  latter  represent  an  essentially 
new,  and  therefore  later  standpoint.  This  is  proved,  in  the 

first  place,  by  all  the  predicates  applied  to  Christ  in  the 

unimpugned  epistles ;  “  the  Son  of  God  ”  (Eom.  i.  3  and  4) ; 
the  “one  Lord,  by  whom  are  all  things”  (1  Cor.  viii.  6);  the 
“  spiritual  Eock  ”  which  followed  Israel  through  the  wilder¬ 
ness,  and  hence  existed  before  His  incarnation  (1  Cor.  x.  4)  ; 
“the  Lord  from  heaven”  (1  Cor.  xv.  47);  “the  Lord  of  glory” 
(1  Cor.  ii.  8);  “the  Image  of  God”  (2  Cor.  iv.  4);  lie  “in 
whom”  God  was  (2  Cor.  v.  19);  whom  “  God  sent  in  the 

likeness  of  sinful  flesh  ”  (Eom.  viii.  3) ;  the  Euler  of  the 

world,  under  whose  feet  God  hath  put  all  things  (1  Cor.  xv. 
25-27) ;  the  Judge  of  the  world  before  whose  judgment-seat 
we  must  all  appear  (2  Cor.  v.  10  ;  Eom.  xiv.  10)  ;  yea,  “  who  is 
over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever  ”  (Eom.  ix.  5  ;  cf.  p.  249).  Again, 
it  is  jaroved  by  the  way  in  which  these  writings  everywhere 
represent  Christ  as  the  risen  and  exalted  Lord,  as  the  centre 
of  salvation  for  the  whole  world,  and  hence  as  One  who  is 
higher  than  men  (“  not  of  men,  but  by  Jesus  Christ,”  Gal.  i.  1), 
while  placing  Him  in  a  uniquely  close  relationship  to  God 
(2  Cor.  xiii.  13  ;  1  Cor.  xii.  4-6  ;  Eom.  xi.  36;  cf.  pp.  255  et  ss.). 
And  finally,  even  the  Book  of  Eevelation  points  to  the  same 
conclusion,  with  its  representation  of  the  divine  majesty  of 
Him  wdio  is  “Alpha  and  Omega,”  the  “Eirst  and  the  Last,” 
the  living  One  who  hath  “  the  keys  of  hell  and  death  ” 
(i.  8-18),  the  “Word  of  God”  (xix.  13),  who  is  worshipped 
by  the  saints  (v.  11-14,  etc.).  Can  any  one  who  has  con- 


538 


PJlDIinVE  GHT.ISTIANITY. 


[LECT.  VIII. 


sidered  all  this  believe  that  St.  Paul  and  St.  John,  the  induhit- 
ahle  authors  of  these  writings,  held  an  inferior  view  of  Christ’s 
person,  or  believed  Him  to  be  a  mere  man  ? 

And  is  there  such  a  great  gulf  between  these  views  and  the 
doctrine  of  Christ’s  person  as  contained  in  tlie  later  epistles  ? 
Ho ;  for  their  doctrinal  tenets  may  be  traced,  either  as  germs, 
or  even  word  for  word,  in  the  five  earliest  books.  Compare, 
for  instance,  the  following  passages — 2  Cor.  iv.  4,  “  Who  is 
the  image  of  God,”  and  Col.  i.  15,  “  Who  is  the  imege  of  the 
invisible  God”  (also  Heb.  i.  3) ;  2  Cor.  v.  19,  “God  was  in 
Christ,  ”  and  Col.  ii.  9,  “  In  Him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of 
the  Godhead  bodily”  (also  1  Tim.  iii.  16);  2  Cor.  viii.  9, 
“  Who,  though  He  was  rich,  yet  for  your  sakes  He  became  poor,” 
and  Phil.  ii.  6,  “  Who,  being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not 
robbery  to  be  equal  with  God,  but  made  Himself  of  no  reputa¬ 
tion  ;  ”  Pom.  viii.  3,  “  God  sent  His  Son  in  the  likeness  of 
sinful  flesh,”  and  Phil.  ii.  7,  He  “  took  upon  Him  the  form  of 
a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men ;  ”  1  Cor.  viii. 
6,  “  One  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  by 
Him,”  and  Col.  i.  16,  “  By  Him  were  all  things  created,”  etc. 
(cf.  Epk  iii.  9  and  John  i.  3) ;  Pom.  ix.  5,  “  over  all,  God 
blessed  for  ever,”  and  Heb.  i.  8  and  9,  “  Unto  the  Son  He 
saith.  Thy  throne,  0  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever”  (also  Tit.  ii. 
13);  Pev.  i.  5,  “the  First-begotten  of  the  dead,”  and  Col.  i. 
18,  “Who  is  the  Beginning,  the  First-born  from  the  dead” 
(also  Acts  xxvi.  23) ;  Pev.  xix.  13,  “  His  name  is  called.  The 
Word  of  God,”  and  John  i.  1  et  ss.,  “  The  Word  was  with 
God,”  etc.;  1  Cor.  ii.  8,  “Lord  of  glory,”  and  Col.  i.  27, 
“  Christ,  the  hope  of  glory  ”  (also  Acts  iii.  1 5) ;  and  numerous 
other  passages.^ 

Is  it  possible,  I  ask,  in  the  face  of  these  parallels  to  main¬ 
tain  that  essentially  different  views  of  our  Lord’s  person  are 
taken  in  the  unimpugned  writings  and  in  the  others  ?  Ho ; 
the  distinction  is  merely  this,  that  the  former  in  most  cases 
merely  hint  at  what  the  others  purposely  discuss  in  all  its 
bearings.  This  may  be  very  simply  explained  from  the  fact, 

•  As,  e.g.,  1  Cor.  i.  24,  30,  with  Col.  ii.  3  ;  1  Cor.  viii.  9  with  1  Thess.  iii. 
13,  V.  23,  24  ;  1  Cor.  x.  4  with  John  viii.  58  ;  Col.  i.  17,  Eph.  i.  4,  2  Tim. 
i.  9,  1  Cor.  xii.  4-6,  with  Eph.  iv.  4-6  ;  2  Cor.  xiii.  13  with  1  Pet.  i.  1,  2  ; 
Eev.  i.  4,  5,  with  ilatt.  xxviii.  19. 


LECT.  VIIL]  EEFUTATION  OF  THE  TUEBINGEN  THEORY.  639 

that  in  course  of  time  the  growth  of  heresies  made  it  increasingly 
necessary  to  treat  the  doctrine  of  the  ijcrson  of  Christ  more  in 
detail,  and  that  the  apostles  themselves  had  gradually  to  groio 
in  their  knowledge  of  Him. 

o 

The  case  is  similar  as  regards  the  relationship  of  St.  John’s 
Gospel  to  the  three  preceding  ones.  Because  it  surrounds 
Jesus  with  the  eternal  glory  of  His  divine  Sonship,  and  em¬ 
phasizes  His  pre-existence,  therefore  its  Christology  is  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  specifically  different  from  that  of  the  Synoptics, 
and  a  sure  proof  of  its  later  origin.  But  it  is  impossible  to 
deny  that  even  the  three  first  Gospels  contain  a  far  higher 
than  merely  human  view  of  Jesus;  they,  too,  ascribe  to  Him 
so  many  superhuman,  nay,  divine  attributes  and  works,  that 
we  cannot  in  this  respect  make  a  fundamental  distinction  be¬ 
tween  their  teaching  and  that  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  Passing 
by  the  history  of  His  conception  through  the  Holy  Ghost,  of 
His  baptism,  His  miracles.  His  transfiguration,  resurrection, 
and  ascension,  we  would  point  especially  to  the  relation  in 
which  Christ  places  His  person  to  the  Old  Covenant  (“  But  1 
say  unto  you,”  Matt,  v.:  His  representation  of  Himself  as  the 
Fulfiller  of  the  law  ;  as  greater  than  the  temple,  as  Lord  of  the 
Sabbath,  as  Borgiver  of  sins,  etc.;  cf.  pp.  24G  et  ss.),  as  also  to 
the  tvorld,  in  which  He  alone  can  relieve  the  weary  and  heavy 
laden,  whose  future  Judge  He  represents  Himself  to  be,  to 
whom  is  committed  all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  (cf.  uli 
sup.  and  Matt,  xxviii.  18).  But  above  all,  Christ,  even  in  the 
Synoptics,  represents  God  as  His  Father  in  a  unique  sense 
(cf  p.  246),  whom  no  one  knows  but  the  Son,  and  who  alone 
knows  the  Son ;  ^  so  that  in  the  baptismal  command  (Matt, 
xxviii.  19)  He  may  insert  His  own  name  between  that  of  the 
Bather  and  the  Holy  Ghost  as  one  of  equal  dignity.  In  all 
this  we  cannot  but  recognise  a  distinct  premonition  of  St. 
John’s  Christology  exhibiting  the  germs  of  the  doctrine  ex¬ 
plicitly  taught  in  the  fourth  Gospel, — germs,  too,  which  pre¬ 
suppose  the  pre-existence  of  Christ  as  maintained  by  St.  John. 
The  critical  school  is  here  labouring  under  the  same  optical 

^  Cf.  Matt.  xi.  27a  and  John  iii.  35,  xiii.  8  ;  Liike  x.  22,  Matt.  xi.  275, 
and  John  vi.  46,  xvii.  25,  xiv.  6  et  ss.,  xv.  21;  Matt,  xxviii.  18  and  John 
xvii.  2  ;  Matt,  xxviii.  20  and  John  xiv.  18;  even  John  x.  80  and  Matt.  x.  37, 
etc. 


540 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY. 


[LECT.  VIII. 


illusion  as  we  pointed  out  in  the  case  of  Strauss.  Because 
the  higher  hnowletlge  of  Christ  only  gradually  developed  in 
the  Church,  it  supposes  that  the  Church  must  have  evolved 
these  higher  elements  from  her  own  consciousness,  or  borrowed 
them  from  Hellenistic  philosophy. 

IMoreover,  we  would  point  out  what  peculiar  and  evidently 
untenable  conclusions  result  from  this  hypothesis,  that  the 
great  majority  of  the  New  Testament  writings  originated  in 
the  endeavour  to  mediate  between  the  Petrine  and  the  Pauline 
party,  and  were  therefore  composed  by  unknown  authors  in 
the  second  century.  Even  the  tendency  which  these  writings 
are  supposed  to  betray  is  by  no  means  demonstrable,  not  even 
in  the  Acts  ;  indeed;  it  is  so  little  pyoven,  that  every  new  critic 
discovers  a  fresh  “  tendency.”  Were  we  to  enter  upon  an 
analysis  of  the  various  Avritings,  we  might  thus  even  disj)ute 
the  presuppositions  of  this  criticism.  But  apart  from  this,  how 
very  strange  it  would  be  if  not  a  single  apostle  out  of  all  the 
eleven  had  left  behind  him  any  writings,  with  the  exception 
of  the  one  Eevelation  of  St.  John,  which  does  not  even  cate¬ 
gorically  affirm  its  own  authenticity  !  How  inconceivable  that 
this  immense  though  gradual  revolution  from  the  most  narrow¬ 
minded  Jewish  primitive  Christianity  to  Pauline  universalism, 
which  changed  a  Jewish  sect  into  the  Christian  Church  uni- 
versal,  should  have  been  guided  entirely  hj  the  ivories  of  anony¬ 
mous  writers,  who  concealed  their  names  under  the  cloak  of 
apostolic  authority,  without  one  of  their  contemporaries  remark¬ 
ing  or  at  least  thinkinci  it  worth  his  while  to  make  a  note  of 
the  pious  fraud!  Unknown  authors  write  the  Gospels,  more 
especially  the  “  mediating  ”  Gospel  of  St.  Mark  and  the 
“sublime”  Gospel  of  St.  John;  an  unknown  personage  com¬ 
poses  the  “  conciliatory”  Acts ;  unknown  forgers  fabricate  the 
Epistles  to  the  Ephesians,  Philippians,  Colossians,  Thessalonians, 
the  Epistles  of  St.  Peter,  St.  John,  St.  Jai^ies,  and  St.  Jude! 
In  fact,  the  entire  movement  through  which  Christianity  be¬ 
came  itself  is  brought  about  by  unknown  persons.  Every  trace 
has  vanished  even  of  the  “  great  nameless  One,”  as  Baur  styles 
the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  The  apostles  live  in  the  first 
century,  but  they  attain  their  reputation  as  writers  during  the 
second  through  the  services  of  others.  There,  men  appear,  but 
without  writings ;  here,  wHtinys  come  to  light,  but  without 


LECT.  VIII.]  REFUTATIOX  OF  THE  TUEBINGEN  TIIEOIIY. 


541 


men  !  How  unnatural  thus  to  tear  asunder  the  men  and  their 
writings  !  ^ 

In  other  cases  we  invariably  find  that  an  age  which  is  fertile 
in  literary  productions  is  followed  by  a  conservative  period,  in 
which  the  productions  of  the  foregoing  are  collected  and 
digested, — first  the  classical,  then  the  post-classical  period. 
Here  we  should  have  exactly  the  reverse, — the  first  century 
conservative,  in  the  main  keeping  to  Judaism,  with  scarcely 
any  productions ;  the  second  century  progressive  and  fertile  in 
great,  but  alas !  unknown  writers.  But  docs  the  second  century 
in  other  respects  hear  the  imiyrcss  of  a  productive  classical  period 
of  literature  1  On  the  contrary  :  its  undoubted  products  breathe 
a  spirit  which  bears  the  same  relation  to  that  of  the  Hew 
Testament  writings  as  does  the  tenor  of  a  post-classical  age  to 
that  of  the  preceding  classical.  Did  these  ivritings,  especially 
the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  hclong  to  “  unlinown"  authors,  they  luoidd 
he  a  perfectly  inexplicahle  phenomenon  as  compared  with  all  the 
other  products  of  that  period.  It  has  been  well  said,  that  it 
were  no  less  absurd  to  ascribe  the  most  inspiriting  writings  of 
Luther  to  the  spiritless  period  of  the  Thirty  Years’  War,  than 
to  transfer  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  to  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  Lor,  notwithstanding  their  warm  Christian  life,  the 
writings  of  the  second  century  evince  such  a  remarkable  dearth 
of  new  ideas,  that  one  plainly  sees  how,  after  the  spiritual  flood- 
tide  of  the  first  century,  the  ebb  had  set  in.^  Hence,  as  we 
have  seen,  negative  critics  have  been  compelled  again  to  raise 
the  age  of  the  Gospels,  and  to  place  them  in  the  apostolic  age, 
between  50  and  100  a.d. 

All  this  compels  us  to  assert  that  the  fundamental  views  of 

'  Cf.  “  Baur  n.  die  TiiLingerBclmle,”  in  Herzog’.s  Realencyclopudle,  xx.  pp.  762 
'  el  s.s.  Hence  Ritschl,  too,  considers  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  as  genuine,  “hecanse 
the  denial  of  its  authenticity  is  a  source  of  far  greater  difficulties  than  its  acknow¬ 
ledgment.” 

^  Compare,  e.g.,  the  clear  and  sober-minded  spirit  of  the  New  Testament 
epistles,  or  the  quiet  sublimity  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  with  the  Epistles  of 
Ignatius,  the  enthusiasm  of  which  degenerates  into  a  well-nigh  fanatic  desire  for 
martyrdom ;  or  wdtli  the  Pastor  of  Hennas,  and  the  value  ascribed  by  him  to 
ascetic  rigour  ;  or  with  the  epistles  written  (in  the  first  century)  by  Clement  of 
Pome,  which  tell  the  fable  of  the  Phoenix  as  a  fact ;  or  again,  wdth  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas,  which  delights  in  insipid  allegories,  and  gives  the  most  absurd  typical 
interpretations  of  the  Old  Testament,  justifying  Neander’s  remark,  that  “here 
we  encounter  quite  another  spirit  than  that  of  an  apostolic  man.” — Eccl.  History, 
i.  3,  p.  1100. 


542 


PPJMITIVE  CIiniSTIANITY. 


[LECT.  YIII. 


Baur  entirely  confuse  and  overturn  the  history  of  primitive 
Christianity  and  its  records,  .Having  rejected  the  miraculous 
beginning  of  Christianity  for  the  sake  of  his  philosophical  pre¬ 
suppositions,  Baur  is  fated  constantly  to  see  his  “  purely  his¬ 
torical  commencement  ”  melt  away  beneath  his  touch.  It  is 
a  hcyinning  ivithout  a  hcginning ;  everything  is  already  extant. 
Principles  of  thought  which  already  exist  are  concentrated  in 
Christ.  He  only  introduces  them  into  the  consciousness  of 
men,  as  the  principle  of  a  purely  spiritual  and  perfectly  moral 
religion.  But  by  mixing  up  this  principle  with  the  Messianic 
idea  He  brings  about  His  death,  and  with  this  the  first  begin¬ 
ning  has  failed.  The  essential  essence  ot  Christianity  is  no 
longer  developed  in  connection  with  its  Founder.  How  Chris¬ 
tianity  has  need  of  a  new  historical  beginning,  and  this  is 
furnished  by  the  belief  of  the  disciples  in  the  resurrection,  i.e. 
not  by  a  fact,  but  merely  by  the  notion  of  a  fact.  But  since 
the  disciples  confine  themselves  to  the  exclusive  national 
element  of  Christ’^  consciousness,  this  beginning  also  threatens 
to  subside  in  the  sand ;  Christianity  is  mere  Ehionitism,  and 
remains  essentially  on  the  Judaistic  standpoint.  At  length 
the  real  beginning  of  Christianity  appears  in  St.  Paul,  who, 
in  the  involuntary  impulse  of  his  dialectic  consciousness,  gains 
the  day  in  favour  of  Christian  universalism.  But  this  truly 
Christian  Pauline  beginning  is  in  danger  of  perishing  through 
Petrine  opposition.  Happily  there  appears  (or  rather  does  not 
appear)  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century  the  author  of  the 
fourth  Gospel,  “  the  great  nameless  One,”  with  his  free  “  com¬ 
position  guided  only  by  the  idea,”  but  not  in  the  least  his¬ 
torical.  Here,  at  last,  is  the  final  beginning,  after  which  we 
cannot  conceive  any  other,  although  Baur,  if  he  were  consistent, 
ought  to  maintain  that  pure  Christianity  (i.e.  morals  without 
dogma)  was  only  discovered  by  the  modern  age. 

Here  once  more  we  see  how  the  “  natural  explanation  ”  of 
Christianity  accumulates  enigmas  instead  of  solving  them. 
Aversion  to  the  miraculous  must  and  ever  will  be  punished  in 
this  way.  It  denies  the  existence  of  a  specifically  divine  factor 
in  Christ,  which  is  the  sole  thing  that  can  make  the  historical 
origin  of  Christianity  and  its  immense  effects  conceivable,  and 
degrades  the  superhuman  form  of  One  “  upon  whose  shoulder 
is  the  government,”  and  who  alone  can  have  been  the  primary 


LECT.  VIII.]  EEFUTATION  OF  THE  TUEBINGEN  THEOBY,  543 

cause  of  so  great  a  movement.  Thus  it  is  that  the  anti- 
miraculists  are  compelled,  in  order  to  explain  these  events, 
to  postulate  reasons  which  crumble  away  on  examination,  be¬ 
cause  they  are  utterly  insufficient  to  sustain  the  weight  of  such 
a  gigantic  superstructure.  Having  degraded  the  supernatural 
to  the  level  of  the  natural,  they  are  fain  to  intensify  the  latter 
supernaturally,  by  ascribing  to  it  forces  and  effects  which  it 
cannot  possibly  have,  nor  ever  has  had. 

The  failure  of  this  attempt  is  quite  analogous  to  that  of 
modern  natural  science  in  its  endeavours  to  break  down  as 
much  as  possible  the  original  firm  barriers  between  the  various 
species  and  genera  of  plants  and  animals,  and  finally  to  prove 
the  origin  of  man  from  the  species  next  below  him  without 
the  influence  of  a  higher  principle.  Darwin,  and  still  more 
the  materialistic  members  of  his  school,  are  aiming  at  the  same 
end  in  the  region  of  natural  science,  as  Baur  and  his  followers 
in  that  of  history.  Both  of  them  bring  confusion  into  history. 
Both  of  them  convert  orderly  development  into  a  chaos  of  strife 
and  enmity.  Both  of  them,  especially,  are  desirous  to  eliminate 
the  miraculous  as  far  as  possible,  by  proving  that  all  intervals 
bridge  themselves  over  naturally.  And  both  cannot  attain 
their  end  for  the  same  reason :  because  they  overlook  the  fact 
that  nature  as  well  as  history  often  moves  forward  in  Ica'ps ;  i.e. 
although  its  progress  is  constantly  mediated,  yet  this  often 
takes  place  through  such  imperceptible  transitions  that  the 
leap  is  concealed  from  our  eyes.  How  vre  must  maintain, 
and  that  on  specifically  moral  grounds,  that  every  heroic  deed, 
as  the  fruit  of  a  moral  resolve,  is  something  new  and  original, 
which  cannot  be  entirely  derived  from  what  preceded  it. 
IMuch  more,  then,  must  we  derive  the  doings  of  Him  who  is 
tlie  primal  Cause  of  all  that  has  ever  taken  place,  not  from 
the  past,  but  from  His  supramundane  essence.  In  other  words, 
we  must  believe  it  to  be  a  miracle  ;  and  therefore  we  may  not 
deny  its  supernatural  interposition  in  history,  whereby  new 
beginnings  are  brought  about,  if  we  are  not  to  lose  the  last 
key  to  the  comprehension  of  the  most  important  historical 
phenomena.  Eothe  will  ever  be  in  the  right  as  against  the 
anti-miraculists,  when  he  thus  addresses  them :  “  Look  to 
yourselves,  and  see  whether  you  can  interpret  history  without 
miracles, — whether  you  can  put  them  aside  and  yet  give  a 


544 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY. 


[LECT.  VIII. 


pragmatic  explanation  of  established  historical  results,  the  key 
to  which  we  who  believe  in  miracles  already  possess.  I,  forN*^ 
my  part,  assuredly  do  not  believe  in  miracles  from  dogmatic 
cupidity,  but  in  the  interests  of  history,  because  I  cannot  dis¬ 
pense  with  them  as  historical  explanations  of  certain  indubit¬ 
able  historical  facts.  I  do  not  find  that  they  make  rents  in 
history ;  hut,  on  the  contrary,  that  hy  their  aid  cdone  am  I  aUe 
to  get  over  its  gaping  chasmsd 

Certainly  the  supernatural  origin  of  Christianity  in  its 
divine  aspect  is  not  to  be  explained :  We  who  believe  in  the 
Bible,  from  the  outset  renounce  any  such  pretensions.  But  we 
do  make  bold  to  prove  that  the  “  natural  ”  beginning  offered  to 
us  in  its  stead  by  the  critical  school  and  the  Eationalists — or, 
indeed,  any  other  attempt  at  a  natural  explanation^ — is  far 
more  incomprehensible ;  tliat  it  results  in  far  greater  enigmas, 
and  must  therefore  necessarily  fail.  According  to  our  view  of 
the  matter,  the  beginning  itself,  i.e.  the  Divine  Sonship  of 
Christ,  is  an  enigma,  but  all  the  rest  is  fully  comprehensible, 
and  may  be  deduced  from  it  in  the  most  simple,  natural,  and 
rational  manner.  The  critical  school,  on  the  contrary,  give  us 
what  is  apparently  a  natural  beginning,  but  really  none  at  all : 
everywhere  and  nowhere ;  melting  under  our  touch ;  and 
making  all  that  follows  one  great  incomprehensible  riddle. 

That  this  is  in  fact  the  dilemma,  may  be  proved  by  a  recent 
utterance  of  Professor  Zeller’s  ^  (one  of  the  few  perfectly  faith¬ 
ful  and  consistent  followers  of  Baur).  According  to  him,  the 
essence  of  Christianity  is  not  fully  represented  in  its  primitive 
form,  but  “everywhere,  if  you  will,  or  nowhere  it  can  only 
be  known  fully  from  the  sum-total  of  its  historical  phenomena, 
but  least  of  all  from  its  dogmas,  which  are  constantly  changing, 
and  must  do  so,  since  they  are  merely  subjective  (?).  So 
Christianity  iS  nothing  but  a  portion  of  the  world’s  history,  the 
substance  of  which  is  perpetually  changing,  whose  real  essence 
can  only  be  determined  when  once  the  drama  of  history  is 
played  out,  and  of  which  we  never  can  say  what  it  is,  but  only 
Avhat  it  has  been  I  What  a  comfortless  idea,  that  would  lead 
us  to  despair  of  all  objective  truth  !  The  entire  gain  from  the 
history  of  the  Christian  dogma  during  eighteen  hundred  years 
has  dwindled  down  to  zero.  Though  Baur  does  not  openly 
*  In  Vorlrdje  u.  Ahhandliaigen  geschichilichen  Inhalt*. 


LECT.  VIII.]  REFUTATION  OF  THE  TUEBINGEN  THEORY. 


545 


confess  it,  j^et  this  is,  in  fact,  the  logical  sequence  of  his  views. 
For,  supposing  his  moral  philosophical  conception  of  Christi¬ 
anity  to  be  correct,  wliat  that  is  permanent  has  its  long  de¬ 
velopment  really  added  to  the  general  ethical  principles  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  IMount,  if  it  is,  properly  speaking,  only  our  own 
age — shall  we  say,  since  Kant  ? — that  has  returned  to  this 
pure  conception  of  Christianity  ?  But  if,  during  this  long 
period,  the  Christian  faith  has  really  made  no  true  progress, 
nor  in  any  way  substantially  enriched  itself,  could  we  then 
expect  much  Froni  its  future  development,  or  entertain  any  hope 
of  a  happy  desthiatwn  ?  ^  No  ;  for  as  soon  as  the  divine  origin 
of  Christianity  is  done  aivay  with,  its  final  aim  is  also  extin¬ 
guished  :  these  two  poles  are  inseparable.  Since  it  is  “  every¬ 
where  and  nowhere,”  it  has  neither  beginning;  nor  end,  and 
hence  no  true  development,  no  real  history.  A  development 
that  results  in  nothing  is  merely  apparent.  Thus  we  arrive  at 
the  logical  sequence  of  Pantheism  (cf  p.  207),  that  there  is  no 
being,  but  only  a  becoming ;  and  hence,  since  there  is  no  real 
being,  the  becoming  also  must  be  only  apparent.  Is  not  this 
a  comfortless  view  ? 

Here  we  see  what  is  the  final  fate  of  every  mere  moral 
conception  of  Christianity.  Instead  of  affording  a  permanent 
incitement  to  man’s  moral  vigour,  it  ends  (though  we  say  this 
without  in  the  least  wishing  to  derogate  from  the  intense 

o  o 

moral  earnestness  with  which  Baur  struggled  after  truth)  in 
a  world  -  vicio  lohich  thoroughly  paralyses  all  his  moral  and 
intellectual  energy.  For  why  should  we  exert  ourselves  if  we 
can  hope  for  no  real  results  ? 

If  we  wish  to  escape  these  sad  consequences,  then — in  vie^\ 
of  the  real  and  historical  character  of  the  miraculous — we 
must  take  heart  and  enlarge  the  narroivncss  of  our  logiced  con¬ 
ceptions  to  meet  the  greedness  of  divine  deeds,  instead  of 
endeavouring  to  cramp  the  latter  to  suit  our  small  conceptions 
and  reducing  them  to  mere  vanishing  magnitudes  just  as  it 
pleases  us.  He  who  takes  the  latter  course  cannot  help  turn¬ 
ing  history  upside  down,  as  we  have  seen  that  Strauss  and 
Baur  do.  They  suppose  the  miraculous  facts  to  have  been 
produced  by  the  belief  in  the  Messianic  dignity  of  Christ, 

'  Cf.  ITlilhorn’s  article  on  the  Tiibingen  School  in  the  Jahrhiiclier  fvx  deutscli* 
Theologie,  vol.  iii.  pp.  316-327. 


546 


PEIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY. 


[lect.  viil 


W’liereas  this  belief  could  only  spring  from  the  rairaculons  facts. 
They  suppose,  again,  that  the  resurrection  arose  from  the  belief 
of  the  disciples,  whereas  the  latter  coidd  only  have  taken  its 
rise  from  the  fact  of  the  resurrection.  They  suppose,  more¬ 
over,  that  St.  Paul  introduced  Christ,  i.e.  Christianity,  into  the 
world’s  history,  whereas  St.  Paul  was  called,  borne,  and  guided 
by  Christ  till  he  became  a  character  of  mark  in  the  world’s 
history.  This  is  what  I  call  turning  history  upside  down. 
And  what  is  the  origin  of  this  strange  undertaking  ?  Nothing 
but  the  philosophical  prcsiuppositions  and  the  aversion  to 
miracles  with  which  this  school  approaches  history.  Very 
many  of  the  critics  of  our  day  fall  into  the  fundamentcd  error 
of  mistaking  their  philosophiccd  and  speculative  treatment  of 
Scripture  for  historical  criticism.  Consciously  or  unconsciously, 
they  allow  their  philosophical  doubts,  their  imbiblical  concep¬ 
tion  of  God,  or  their  enmity  towards  the  miraculous,  to  decide 
even  on  purely  historical  questions,  and  thereby  loring  con¬ 
fusion  into  the  whole.  Against  this  practice  it  has  been  truly 
remarked,  that  “  only  the  man  whose  religious  convictions 
are  founded  upon  Scripture  is  capable  of  criticising  it  in  an 
entirely  unbiassed  spirit.  In  the  case  of  a  man  of  any  other 
convictions,  his  disagreement  with  the  substance  of  Scripture 
must  play  him  constant  tricks  even  in  matters  purely  formal 
and  historical.”  That  very  thing  which  Baur  thought  to  be 
the  strength  of  critical  science,  viz.  the  Hegelian  view  of  the 
world  and  of  history,  is  its  weakness ;  this  was  the  barrier 
v/hich  cramped  the  struggles  of  his  mighty  spirit,  and  prevented 
him  from  arriving  at  solid  results.^  Truly  it  is  a  tragic 
spectacle  to  see  such  a  gigantic  intellect  wrestling  with  iron 
diligence  to  attain  that  wliich  in  itself  is  unattainable,  a  pure 
impossibility ;  and  this  especially  because  it  exhibits  not  so 
much  the  error  of  the  individual  as  the  fault  of  his  age, — that 
age  ruled  by  a  onesided,  idealistic  philosophy,  in  consequence 
of  which  so  many  of  the  first  minds  of  our  century — even  a 

*  Cf.  Laiulcver  {uhi  sup.  pp.  76,  77),  wlio  on  p.  67  utters  over  the  grave  of 
his  (li’parted  colleague  the  following  noteworthy  sentiment  :  “It  would  be  the 
greatest  injustice  to  class  Baur  with  the  worthless  and  frivoLiis  rabble  of  those 
who  —  without  the  intellectual  power  of  following  his  deductions  —  merely 
adopt  the  negative  and  sceptical  portion  of  his  re.sults,  in  order  to  use  them 
as  a  fig  leaf  whei’ewithal  to  cover  their  own  moral  shame  and  intellectual  hol¬ 
lowness.” 


LECT.  VIII.] 


CONCLUSION. 


547 


Schlciermacher — in  tlieir  grandest  acdiievements  fell  “victims 
to  the  limitations  of  this  particular  standpoint.” 

Witli  a  correct  presentiment  of  this  inevitable  issue^  which 
probably  the  master  of  this  school  himself  experienced,  his 
followers  have  since,  in  part,  like  Schwegler  and  Kdstlin,  given 
np  theology  entirely;  partly,  like  Ilitschl,  approached  the  stand¬ 
point  of  revealed  religion ;  partly,  as  we  have  seen,  at  least 
made  a  series  of  important  concessions  with  res]3ect  to  the 
criticism  of  the  New  Testament  writings.  Thus  the  number 
of  those  who  represent  Banr’s  standpoint  whole  and  entire  is, 
at  least  among  German  theologians,  very  small.  In  Tubingen 
there  is  now  no  longer  any  Tiibingen  SchooL  .  .  . 

In  conclusion,  a  request  to  my  readers. 

And,  first  of  all,  to  those  who  are  helievcrs.  Let  me  beg  you 
not  to  i^lace,  all  clovMcrs  incliscrhiiinately  in  one  class.  Some  of 
them  seek  in  order  to  find.  These  we  must  never  despair  of: 
God  gives  success  to  the  upright.  Others,  however,  seek  in 
order  to  lose,  and  to  cast  away  one  article  after  another  of  the 
old  faith  ;  thc,y  diligently  gather  together  specious  arguments 
ill  favour  of  the  unbelief  which  suits  them  ;  they  have  soon 
settled  the  question,  mostly  witliout  any  great  inward  conflicts, 
and  are  then  inaccessible  to  all  arguments,  so  that,  as  a  rule, 
not  human  words,  but  only  divine  deeds,  can  set  their  heart 
and  head  right  once  more.  In  such  cases  the  Christian’s  rule 
will  be  to  strive  less  against  them  with  human  arguments 
than  for  them  before  God,  with  the  weapons  of  his  Christian 
priesthood.  As  against  such  opponents,  the  best  argument, 
and  that  most  likely  to  make  an  impression,  is  the  actued 
'proof  of  a  Christian  moral  life.  And  V'hile  we  lament  that 
in  our  day  so  many  are  shaking  at  the  foundations  of  our 
faith,  let  us  not  forget  to  take  to  ourselves  a  share  of  the 
blame.  The  most  convincing  proof  for  the  great  deeds  of 
God,  such  as  the  resurrection,  does  not  consist,  nor  ever  has 
consisted,  in  words ;  but  it  is  now  as  it  was  eighteen  hundred 
years  ago,  the  living  Church  itself,  in  which  the  risen  Lord  is 
dwelling  and  working,  which  counts  all  things  for  loss  that 
she  “  may  knov''  Him  and  the  power  of  His  resurrection.” 
So  long  as  through  our  fault  this  spiritual  life  is  lacking,  there 
will  never  be  any  scarcity  of  doubters  and  deniers  of  our  faith. 


548 


CONCLUSION 


[lECT.  VIIL 


On  the  other  hand,  let  me  beg  our  doubting  opponents  to 
investigate  religious  questions,  not  merely  with  the  head  and 
with  the  narrow  standard  of  our  logical  conceptions,  but  at 
the  same  time,  nay,  even  beforehand,  with  the  heart  and  con¬ 
science,  whilst  careially  following  up  the  traces  which  are 
indicated  to  them  by  the  weaker  or  stronger  promptings  of 
their  innermost  needs.  Let  me  beg  them  to  try  themselves, 
and  see  whether  it  is  not  only  that  in  us  which  is  low  and 
mean  that  is  against  Christ,  whereas  all  that  is  great  and 
noble  is  for  Him.  Let  me  beg  them  not  to  allow  themselves 
to  be  blinded  by  the  hollow  though  high-sounding  phrases  of 
80  many  journals  and  other  writings,  which,  instead  of  pro¬ 
moting  real  knowledge,  infinitely  hinder  it ;  or  by  the  catch¬ 
words  of  those  who  know  very  well  what  they  do  not  want, 
but  not  what  they  do  want,  and  what  positive  result  is  to 
remain  after  all  their  negations.  Let  me  beg  them  not  to 
begin  by  accounting  their  doubts  a  sign  of  strength,  whereas 
they  are  the  very  contrary.  As  in  the  case  of  the  first 
doubter  in  jDaradise,  so  to  this  day  doubt  in  its  innermost 
nature  is  a  wrong  compliance,  a  weakness,  a  cowardly  dread 
of  ventures  and  difficulties ;  whereas  the  innermost  source  of 
faith  is  the  courage  which  bravely  seizes  and  stedfastly  holds 
to  that  which  is  invisible.  “  A  sceptic,”  says  J.  A.  Bengel, 
the  great  commentator  on  the  Hew  Testament,  “  is  like  a 
traveller  who  should  refuse  to  cross  a  puddle  or  to  step  over 
a  twig,  till  all  were  smoothed  down  and  filled  up.  Who 
would  think  such  a  man  wise  ?  Faith  takes  up  all  that  it 
can  get,  and  marches  bravely  onward ;  unbelief  is  the  direct 
opposite  of  this.  In  studying  the  Bible,  w’e  must  do  like  the 
courier  who  hurries  over  pools  and  hillocks  the  nearest  way  to 
his  destination,  and  does  not  first  seek  to  level  every  clod 
That  which  is  difficult  at  last  comes  of  its  own  accord.  The 
most  important  controversies  are  those  which  a  man  finds  in 
his  own  heart.”  But  these  latter,  we  add,  point  us  to  the 
place  where  Thomas,  the  doubter  even  amongst  the  apostles, 
had  to  learn  his  faith.  Only  in  the  wounds  of  Christ  can  we 
learn  by  faith  the  truth  which  shall  make  us  free.  There 
only  does  unbelief,  even  to  this  day,  learn  to  surrender  and 
humbly  confess :  “  My  Lord  and  my  God !  ”  He  who  will 
not  seek  for  the  truth  there  will  never  find  it.  All  that  we 


Li:CT.  viil] 


CONCLUSION. 


549 


can  do  for  the  sceptics  of  the  present  day  is  to  make  the  v/ay 
there  as  easy  for  them  as  may  be,  in  order  that  the  sign  of 
Jonah,  given  by  our  buried  and  risen  Lord,  may  be  to  them  a 
rock  ot  salvation  and  not  of  offence. 

All  my  readers  together  I  would  remind  of  that  word : 

Every  way  of  a  man  is  right  in  his  own  eyes ;  but  the  Lord 
pondereth  the  hearts  ”  (Prov.  xxi.  2).  Whether  we  build,  or 
whether  we  pull  down,  to  his  own  Master  each  one  of  us 
staiideth  or  falleth.  Let  us  “  prove  all  things,  and  hold  fast 
that  which  is  good ;  ”  and  let  us,  even  though  we  may  have 
our  own  secular  calling,  expend  some  labour  on  this  probation. 
That  alone  lor  which  we  have  striven  and  suffered  with  all 
our  might,  with  labour  and  pains,  is  really  ours ;  an  honour¬ 
ably  conquered  conviction,  a  real  possession.  Only  in  so 
doing  do  we  fulfil  the  apostolic  injunction,  “  Let  every  one 
be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind.” 

My  task  has  only  been  to  scatter  here,  in  hope,  some  of 
those  arguments  for  the  truth  uhich  I  have  found  to  be 
tenable.  The  rest  I  must  leave  to  my  readers,  and  to  the 
Lord  of  the  harvest 


THE  END. 


S 


X 


i 


V.",  . 


7  •  ■.  ■  • 


IT 

|lM^. 

fVkM  ^  ^  MP 

‘‘r  Mfgi 

fJ^'^SsanBiXmfk,  \,Ji^k.  JuFilta 

M 

,\Ft 

iW^fm 

■  \\  V  ^ 1  Mm: 

^  •']  A  am.  •  '■ 

Mi  ■^•■’-  «  JBp^ 

i  9  •'  \  )  •  ,■’*  f  i 

?*■'  .*:  !'  '  •/■•,'jf. 

( ‘  'f*"  r  (A 

I  ■  >  HBHI  -  I 

i#j'*Vv*(.#/,‘'.//',ji 

